Dataset Information

Defining a patient-centered approach to cancer survivorship care: development of the patient centered survivorship care index (PC-SCI).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study presents the validation of an index that defines and measures a patient-centered approach to quality survivorship care.

Methods

We conducted a national survey of 1,278 survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers to identify their priorities for cancer survivorship care. We identified 42 items that were "very important or absolutely essential" to study participants. We then conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA/CFA) to develop and validate the Patient-Centered Survivorship Care Index (PC-SCI).

Results

A seven-factor structure was identified based on EFA on a randomly split half sample and then validated by CFA based on the other half sample. The seven factors include: (1) information and support in survivorship (7 items), (2) having a medical home (10 items) (3) patient engagement in care (3 items), (4) care coordination (5 items), (5) insurance navigation (3 items), (6) care transitions from oncologist to primary care (3 items), and (7) prevention and wellness services (5 items). All factors have excellent composite reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha 0.84-0.94, Coefficient of Omega: 0.81-0.94).

Conclusions

Providing quality post-treatment care is critical for the long-term health and well-being of survivors. The PC-SCI defines a patient-centered approach to survivorship care to complement clinical practice guidelines. The PC-SCI has acceptable composite reliability, providing the field with a valid instrument of patient-centered survivorship care. The PC-SCI provides cancer centers with a means to guide, measure and monitor the development of their survivorship care to align with patient priorities of care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02362750 , 13 February 2015.

SUBMITTER: Mead KH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8684610 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices' internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare. The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care. The needed practice organizational and health care system change aspects of the PCMH are still evolving in highly related ways. The PCMH will continue to evolve as evidence comes in from hundreds of demonstrations and experiments ongoing around the country, and as the local and larger healthcare systems change. Measuring the PCMH involves the following: Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary care. Assessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added value Assessing development of practices' core processes and adaptive reserve. Assessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resources. Evaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspects. Recognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings. Efforts to transform practice to patient-centered medical homes must recognize, assess and value the fundamental features of primary care that provide personalized, equitable health care and foster individual and population health.

Project description:Background/AimsPatient-centered communication (PCC) is a critical element of patient-centered care, which the Institute of Medicine (2001) promulgates as essential to improving healthcare delivery. The National Cancer Institute?s Strategic Plan for Leading the Nation (2008) calls for assessing the delivery of PCC in cancer care. However, no comprehensive measure of PCC exists, and stakeholders have different conceptualizations and assumptions about how to measure it. The purpose of our study was to develop a set of self-administered patient survey items for comprehensive PCC assessment.MethodsOur approach was grounded in the PCC conceptual framework, as presented in the NCI monograph, Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care (2007), which defines six functions of PCC:First, we developed a comprehensive inventory of measurement domains and subdomains, aligned with the PCC functions, by reviewing relevant literature, consulting experts, and conducting a small qualitative study involving patient interviews. Next, we inventoried over 100 survey and other measurement instruments, identifying over 1,300 possible items. We evaluated items using a systematic question appraisal system, adapted existing measures as appropriate, and developed new questions to fill identified gaps. Finally, we tested more than 200 survey questions with cancer patients (n=46) using cognitive interviews.ResultsOverall, the findings from the cognitive interviews suggest that the survey questions function well. Patients were generally able to understand the questions and apply them to their own experiences. Many participants reported that the questions reflected important aspects of their interaction with providers.ConclusionsThe draft PCC survey items can now be used for population surveillance, quality assessment, and intervention research in the context of cancer care. Although the survey items focus on PCC with respect to cancer care, many are relevant to all patients as patient-centered care is a goal for health care generally. We discuss challenges of PCC assessment, including measuring communication experiences across different care settings, types of clinicians, and stages in the cancer care continuum. Measuring PCC longitudinally over the course of care and balancing parsimony and comprehensiveness are important considerations.

Project description:Importance:Survivorship involves a multidisciplinary approach to surveillance and management of comorbidities and secondary cancers, overseen by oncologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Optimal timing and coordination of care, however, is unclear and often based on arbitrary 5-year cutoffs. Objective:To determine high- and low-risk periods for all tumor types that could define when survivorship care might best be overseen by oncologists and when to transition to primary care physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this pan-cancer, longitudinal, observational study, excess mortality hazard, calculated as an annualized mortality risk above a baseline population, was plotted over time. The time this hazard took to stabilize defined a high-risk period. The percent morality elevation above age- and sex-matched controls in the latter low-risk period was reported as a mortality gap. The US population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database defined the cancer population, and the US Census life tables defined controls. Incident cases of patients with cancer were separated into tumor types based on International Classification of Diseases for Oncology definitions. Exposures:Population-level data on incident cancer cases was compared with the general US population. Main Outcomes and Measures:Overall mortality and cause of death were reported on observed cancer cases. Results:A total of 2 317 185 patients (median age, 63 years; 49.8% female) with 66 primary tumor types were evaluated. High-risk surveillance period durations ranged from less than 1 year (breast, prostate, lip, ocular, and parathyroid cancers) up to 19 years (unspecified gastrointestinal cancers). The annualized mortality gap, representing the excess mortality in the stable period, ranged from a median 0.26% to 9.33% excess annual mortality (thyroid and hypopharyngeal cancer populations, respectively). Cluster analysis produced 6 risk cluster groups: group 1, with median survival of 16.2 (5th to 95th percentile range [PR], 10.7-40.2) years and median high-risk period of 2.5 (PR, 0-5.0) years; group 2, 8.3 (PR, 5.1-23.3) and 2.5 (PR, 4.0-8.0) years; group 3, 2.8 (PR, 1.4-3.7) and 7.0 (PR, 6.0-11.1) years; group 4, 1.6 (PR, 1.5-1.8) and 6.0 (PR, 5.1-11.4) years; group 5, 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) and 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) years; and group 6, 0.5 (PR, 0.4-0.8) and 12.0 (PR, 9.3-12.9) years, respectively. Subanalyses of selected tumor types in these groups revealed that stratifying on stage and histologic type can change the risk cluster and guidance for care. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings indicate that a standardized 5-year surveillance period is inadequate for some cancers while excessive for others. High-risk cancers require the most resources with the longest high-risk period, highest persistent baseline mortality risk, and longest period of primary cancer mortality, all arguing for longer follow-up with an oncologist in these cancers.

Project description:Background and objectivesPatient centeredness is widely advocated as a cornerstone of health care, but it is yet to be fully realized, including in nephrology. Our study aims to describe nephrologists' perspectives on defining and implementing patient-centered outcomes in hemodialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsFace-to-face, semistructured interviews were conducted with 58 nephrologists from 27 dialysis units across nine countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Singapore, and New Zealand. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.ResultsWe identified five themes on defining and implementing patient-centered outcomes in hemodialysis: explicitly prioritized by patients (articulated preferences and goals, ascertaining treatment burden, defining hemodialysis success, distinguishing a physician-patient dichotomy, and supporting shared decision making), optimizing wellbeing (respecting patient choice, focusing on symptomology, perceptible and tangible, and judging relevance and consequence), comprehending extensive heterogeneity of clinical and quality of life outcomes (distilling diverse priorities, highly individualized, attempting to specify outcomes, and broadening context), clinically hamstrung (professional deficiency, uncertainty and complexity in measurement, beyond medical purview, specificity of care, mechanistic mindset [focused on biochemical targets and comorbidities], avoiding alarm, and paradoxical dilemma), and undermined by system pressures (adhering to overarching policies, misalignment with mandates, and resource constraints).ConclusionsImproving patient-centered outcomes is regarded by nephrologists to encompass strategies that address patient goals and improve wellbeing and treatment burden in patients on hemodialysis. However, efforts are hampered by ambiguities about how to prioritize, measure, and manage the plethora of critical comorbidities and broader quality of life outcomes in a care setting that is technically demanding and driven by biochemical targets. Identifying critical patient-important outcomes and mechanisms for integrating them into practice may help to deliver patient-centered care in hemodialysis and other chronic disease settings.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough prostate cancer is the most common cancer among veterans receiving care in the Veterans Health Administration (VA), more needs to be done to understand and improve survivorship care for this large population. This study, funded by VA Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D), seeks to address the need to improve patient-centered survivorship care for veterans with prostate cancer.Methods/designThis is a two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a target enrollment of up to 325 prostate cancer survivors per study arm (total anticipated n = 600). Patients will be recruited from four VA sites. Patient eligibility criteria include age range of 40-80 years, one to ten years post-treatment, and currently experiencing prostate cancer symptom burden. We will compare the "Building Your New Normal" program, a personally-tailored automated telephone symptom management intervention for improving symptom self-management to usual care enhanced with a non-tailored newsletter about symptom management. Primary outcomes include changes in symptom burden, bother, and health services utilization at five and 12 months after enrollment. Secondary outcomes include long-term psychosocial outcomes (e.g. subjective health, perceived cancer control). We will use multivariable regression analysis to evaluate the impact of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes. We will conduct a process evaluation to understand the effective intervention components and explore possibilities for broader implementation and dissemination.DiscussionOur central hypothesis is that intervention group participants will have improved and more confident symptom self-management and prostate cancer quality of life following the intervention and that these outcomes will translate to more efficient use of health services. The study results will provide much needed information about how to optimize the quality of care, and life, of veteran prostate cancer survivors.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01900561 ; Registered on 22 July 2013.