Cited by 221Cancer survivorship and carePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

Survivorship care plans in cancer: a systematic review of care plan outcomes

Open access
Brennan, M E, Gormally, J F, Butow, P, Boyle, F M, Spillane, A J·2014·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Eight years after the Institute of Medicine recommended survivorship care plans (SCPs) for all cancer survivors, this study systematically reviewed the evidence for their use. METHODS: Studies evaluating outcomes after implementation of SCPs for cancer survivors were identified by searching databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane). Data were extracted and summarised. RESULTS: Ten prospective studies (2286 survivors) met inclusion criteria (5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)). Study populations included survivors of breast, gynaecological, colorectal and childhood cancer. Several models of SCP were evaluated (paper based/on-line, oncologist/nurse/primary-care physician-delivered and different templates). No significant effect of SCPs was found on survivor distress, satisfaction with care, cancer-care coordination or oncological outcomes in RCTs. Breast cancer survivors with SCPs were better able to correctly identify the clinician responsible for their follow-up care. One study suggested a positive impact on reducing unmet needs. Levels of survivor satisfaction with, and self-reported understanding of, their SCP were very high. Feasibility was raised by health professionals as a significant barrier, as SCPs took 1-4 h of their time to develop. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging evidence shows very few measurable benefits of SCPs. Survivors reported high levels of satisfaction with SCPs. Resource issues were identified as a significant barrier to implementation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.2014.505

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This review has a broader scope than previous reviews, encompassing several forms of cancer, and includes many more studies of the impact of SCPs on health outcomes and health care delivery than previous reviews.

    “It has a broader scope than previous reviews,36 encompassing several forms of cancer, and includes many more studies of the impact of SCPs on health outcomes and health care delivery than included in previous reviews.37,38”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brennan, M. E., Gormally, J. F., Butow, P., Boyle, F. M., & Spillane, A. J.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Brennan, M E
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2014-10-14
Volume
111
Issue
10
Pages
1899-1908
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2055970016
Cited by
221
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Mater Foundation
  • Friends of The Mater Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Keywords
survivorship care plans, cancer survivors, survivorship care, breast cancer survivors, gynaecological cancer survivors, colorectal cancer survivors, childhood cancer survivors, satisfaction with care, care coordination, unmet needs, implementation barriers, follow-up care
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Continuity of Patient Care, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Care Planning, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Survivors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review