Cited by 31Health Policy Implementation ScienceCancer survivorship and careClinical practice guidelines implementation

Avoiding Implementation Errors in Cancer Survivorship Care Plan Effectiveness Studies

Open access
Mayer, Deborah K., Birken, Sarah A., Chen, Ronald C.·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Although survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been recommended for the last decade, implementation and dissemination has been slow, low, and sporadic. In the accompanying article, Nicolaije et al report on the longitudinal effectiveness of SCPs. This is the fourth publication from the Registrationsystem Oncological Gynecology (ROGY) program, which electronically generates an SCP for women with gynecologic malignancies in the Netherlands. Previously, Nicolaije et al documented the degree of dissatisfaction of information provided for women with endometrial cancer, concluding that SCPs could address many of these unmet needs. They conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial in 12 institutions in which half used the ROGY system to create and deliver an individualized SCP and half received usual care for patients ending treatment between 2011 and 2012. This study contributes to a growing number of randomized controlled trials of SCP effectiveness. These and other studies have primarily assessed the effects of SCPs on distal outcomes, such as patient satisfaction with care. They tend not to address the more proximal, process-related outcomes that we might expect SCPs to influence (eg, knowledge, communication, and care coordination) or how SCPs are implemented. In this sense, the standards to which we hold studies of SCP effectiveness diverge from standards for other innovations in cancer care. For example, studies of the effectiveness of a cancer drug report on its indications, mode of administration, dose, frequency, adverse effects, and response rates; we take these into account when evaluating their results. In contrast, SCP effectiveness studies rarely define the information that SCPs contain, how they are developed and delivered, whether survivors or primary care providers (PCPs) receive and use them, whether and how frequently they are updated, and whether SCPs have any negative effects. Without this information, SCP effectiveness studies cannot be compared or contrasted, and they cannot inform future implementation and dissemination efforts. Moreover, omitting this information exposes SCP effectiveness studies to the possibility that outcomes are the result not of the inherent (in)effectiveness of SCPs but rather of poor or inconsistent SCP implementation (type III error).

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 · 10.1200/jco.2015.62.6937

Cites

23 of 23 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?

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
Mayer, D. K., Birken, S. A., & Chen, R. C.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2015-11-01
Volume
33
Issue
31
Pages
3528-3530
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1915955486
Cited by
31
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
cancer survivorship care plans, Type III error, implementation errors, effectiveness research, gynecologic cancer, endometrial cancer, primary care providers, process outcomes, patient satisfaction, care coordination
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Endometrial Neoplasms, Patient Outcome Assessment

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