Simplifying survivorship care planning: A randomized controlled trial comparing three care plan delivery approaches.
Authors: Snyder Claire Frances , Choi Youngjee , Blackford Amanda L. , DeSanto Jennifer , Mayonado Nancy , Rall Susan Lynn , White Sharon , Bowie Janice , Cowall David Eric , Johnston Fabian McCartney , Joyner Robert L. , Mischtschuk Joan Margaret , Peairs Kimberly S. , Thorner Elissa D. , Tran Phuoc T. , Wolff Antonio C. , Smith Katherine Clegg ,   SSCP Stakeholder Advisory Board
Published: June 2021

12024

Background: Survivorship care plans (“plans”) have been promoted to smooth the transition from active cancer treatment to survivorship. However, the time and resources involved in plan completion and delivery have been barriers to implementation. This randomized controlled trial aimed to identify the simplest, most effective approach for implementing survivorship care planning. Methods: Stage 1-3 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients aged 21+ who were completing acute treatment were recruited from one urban-academic and one rural-community cancer center. Participants were randomized, stratified by recruitment site and cancer type, 1:1:1 to (a) mailed plan (“mail”), (b) plan delivered during one-time transition visit (“one-visit”), or (c) plan delivered during transition visit plus a 6-month follow-up visit (“two-visit”). Health service use (visits, tests/procedures, non-oral medications) was collected from participants and medical records for 18 months and compared to the plan recommendations. Logistic regression, adjusting for cancer type and recruitment site, was used to evaluate the primary outcome of adherence to recommendations for all health service use categories by intervention arm. Descriptive analyses compared care receipt for each health service use category separately (i.e., visits, tests/procedures, non-oral medications). Results: Of 378 participants randomized (n = 126 mail; n = 125 one-visit; n = 127 two-visit), 316 (84%) were analyzable for the primary outcome (n = 107 mail; n = 105 one-visit; n = 104 two-visit): 164 (52%) recruited from the urban-academic and 152 (48%) from the rural-community site; 137 (43%) breast, 112 (35%) prostate, 67 (21%) colorectal cancer; mean age 62 years. For the primary outcome, there was no difference across arms in the proportion of participants who received all plan-recommended care: 45.2% mail, 50.5% one-visit, 42.7% two-visit (p = 0.60). We did not find significant interactions by recruitment site or cancer type. There were also no differences in receipt of recommended care by category of health service use. The proportion of participants who had the recommended number of visits was 53.4% mail, 54.8% one-visit, 53.7% two-visit (p = 0.99). The proportion undergoing recommended tests/procedures was 78.8% mail, 77.2% one-visit, 73.0% two-visit (p = 0.62). The proportion receiving recommended non-oral medications was 66.7% mail, 75.0% one-visit, 73.7% two-visit (p = 0.87). Conclusions: This study found no significant difference in receipt of recommended follow-up care by plan delivery approach. Across study arms, survivors were more likely to receive recommended tests/procedures and non-oral medications but less likely to have the recommended number of visits. Feasibility and other factors may determine the best survivorship care planning approach. Clinical trial information: NCT03035773.