The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 14 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Systematic Review of the Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Plans on Health Outcomes and Health Care Delivery
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Numerous organizations recommend that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) comprising a treatment summary and follow-up care plans. Among current barriers to implementation are providers’ concerns about the strength of evidence that SCPs improve outcomes. This systematic review evaluates whether delivery of SCPs has a positive impact on health outcomes and health care delivery for cancer survivors. Methods: Randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes, health care use, and disease outcomes after delivery of SCPs were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library. Data extracted by independent raters were summarized on the basis of qualitative synthesis. Results: Eleven nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies met inclusion criteria. Variability was evident across studies in cancer types, SCP delivery timing and method, SCP recipients and content, SCP-related counseling, and outcomes assessed. Nonrandomized study findings yielded descriptive information on satisfaction with care and reactions to SCPs. Randomized study findings were generally negative for the most commonly assessed outcomes (ie, physical, functional, and psychological well-being); findings were positive in single studies for other outcomes, including amount of information received, satisfaction with care, and physician implementation of recommended care. Conclusion: Existing research provides little evidence that SCPs improve health outcomes and health care delivery. Possible explanations include heterogeneity in study designs and the low likelihood that SCP delivery alone would influence distal outcomes. Findings are limited but more positive for proximal outcomes (eg, information received) and for care delivery, particularly when SCPs are accompanied by counseling to prepare survivors for future clinical encounters. Recommendations for future research include focusing to a greater extent on evaluating ways to ensure SCP recommendations are subsequently acted on as part of ongoing care.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review of 24 studies found limited evidence that survivorship care plans (SCPs) improve health outcomes or health care delivery for cancer survivors. Findings were generally null for commonly assessed patient-reported outcomes, with isolated positive findings for proximal outcomes and care delivery, especially when SCPs were accompanied by counseling.
Key findings
- The review included 24 articles: 11 nonrandomized studies and 13 randomized studies. Nonrandomized studies were mostly descriptive and focused on feasibility, acceptability, and satisfaction; one analysis of changes in psychological distress found no statistically significant differences.
- Among randomized studies, findings were generally negative for the most commonly assessed outcomes (physical, functional, and psychological well-being). Seven studies reported no statistically significant differences across intervention conditions; four reported beneficial effects limited to single studies (fewer depressive symptoms, less health worry and less negative outlook, greater satisfaction with care, greater amount of information received), and one reported adverse effects (more symptoms, illness concerns, and emotional impact of illness).
- Six randomized studies assessed health care delivery and use; five reported beneficial effects (greater preference for shared care, greater likelihood of correctly identifying the PCP as responsible for follow-up, greater adherence to cardiomyopathy screening, better physician implementation of survivorship care recommendations, and more cancer-related contact with the PCP), while one reported no statistically significant differences.
- Two studies assessed disease-related end points and found no statistically significant differences in time to diagnosis of recurrence or recurrence-related serious clinical events. Economic findings were mixed: one study reported lower health care costs in the SCP condition, while another reported higher societal and health care costs but negligible differences in quality-adjusted life years.
Methods
- Systematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library, with coverage ending July 16, 2017. Studies were eligible if published in English, involved delivery of an SCP to survivors and/or their health care providers, and evaluated patient-reported outcomes, health care use, or disease outcomes.
- A total of 1,399 studies were identified through database searches and 54 additional articles from reference lists and previous reviews; after duplicates were removed, 1,091 articles were screened, 41 full texts were assessed, and 24 articles met inclusion criteria.
- Two paired reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and rated quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies for nonrandomized studies and items adapted from the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized studies. Because of limited size and marked heterogeneity, analysis focused on qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis.
Limitations
- The paper states that the limited number of studies and heterogeneous methodology precluded quantitative synthesis, so the review examined whether randomized study findings reached statistical significance rather than aggregating effect sizes. It was also limited to published studies in English, excluding relevant unpublished studies and research in other languages, and examined only health outcomes and health care delivery, not other aspects such as survivor and provider preferences for SCP content and delivery methods.
- Evident from the text: the nonrandomized studies were uncontrolled and focused mostly on feasibility and acceptability, limiting conclusions about impact. Many randomized studies had unclear risk-of-bias ratings because of insufficient information, and significant findings for any specific outcome were often limited to single studies, which the authors note seriously limits definitive conclusions.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 14 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Variability was evident across studies in cancer types, SCP delivery timing and method, SCP recipients and content, SCP-related counseling, and outcomes assessed.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the 13 randomized studies, most focused on examining the impact of SCPs on patient-reported health states and perceptions of care.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“No statistically significant differences across intervention conditions were reported in seven studies.23,24,26-28,33,35”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only six studies reported results for the impact of SCPs on health care delivery and use; however, five of these studies reported significant findings.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The one exception was an analysis of changes over time in psychological distress scores, which yielded no statistically significant differences.19”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was also little consistency in what outcomes were assessed and even in what measures were used to assess the same outcome (eg, psychological distress).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the significant findings suggested beneficial effects of SCPs, but, once again, the findings for any specific outcome (eg, physician implementation of survivorship care recommendations) were limited to single studies.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies reviewed evaluated SCPs that differed markedly in terms of the follow-up information and care recommendations provided, when they were delivered in relation to treatment completion, and how and to whom they were delivered.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Consistent with this view are results described in the current article showing delivery of SCPs resulted in survivors reporting a greater amount of information received34 and greater likelihood of survivors correctly identifying their PCP as responsible for follow-up care.23”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the significant findings suggested beneficial effects of SCPs, but, once again, the findings for any specific outcome (eg, physician implementation of survivorship care recommendations) were limited to single studies.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eleven nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies met inclusion criteria.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“A total of 24 articles, comprising 11 nonrandomized studies12-22 and 13 randomized studies23-35, were eligible for inclusion in the synthesis.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 24Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found 17 studies focused on a specific cancer type”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The global rating of study quality was weak for nine studies and moderate for two studies.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 11Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies in this area have tended to focus on more distal outcomes such as survivors’ reports of their health status in the months after delivery of an SCP.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Including the last two studies, SCPs were provided to PCPs in 10 studies.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the other study, societal costs and health care costs were higher in the SCP condition relative to the no-SCP condition; however, differences in quality-adjusted life years were negligible.25”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No statistically significant differences in either outcome was reported when specialist follow-up care was compared with transfer of follow-up care to a PCP.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few conclusions can be drawn about impact of SCPs from the 11 nonrandomized studies that were reviewed, because they were uncontrolled and focused mostly on issues of the feasibility and acceptability of delivering SCPs.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across studies, four aspects of risk were frequently rated low: allocation adequately concealed, baseline outcome assessments similar, baseline characteristics similar, and free of selective outcome reporting.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 13Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among the 13 randomized studies, the unit of randomization was the participant in 11 studies,23,25-33,35 hospital in one study,34 and oncology practice in one study.24”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample sizes ranged from 41 to 968 (median, n = 224).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 224Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“sample sizes ranged from 10 to 4,021 (median, n = 142).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 142Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Five studies focused on survivors of childhood-onset cancers13,19,21,22,31 and 19 focused on survivors of adult-onset cancers.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SCPs were likely all delivered within 1 year of treatment completion in nine studies14,18,20,24,26,30,32,34,35 and otherwise in 14 studies.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agreement on inclusion or exclusion between the two reviewers for the 41 articles was substantial (90%; ĸ = 0.790; 95% CI, 0.594 to 0.985).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two paired reviewers independently entered this information into a spreadsheet and subsequently discussed and resolved discrepancies.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reviewers also independently rated the quality of evidence using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (QATQS)10 for nonrandomized studies and items adapted from the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials11 for randomized studies.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10]
- Not checked yetcites [11]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Findings are limited but more positive for proximal outcomes (eg, information received) and for care delivery, particularly when SCPs are accompanied by counseling to prepare survivors for future clinical encounters.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Possible explanations include heterogeneity in study designs and the low likelihood that SCP delivery alone would influence distal outcomes.”
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is premature to conclude that SCPs are not beneficial, given weaknesses in the evidence base that include a limited number of studies, heterogeneity in the content and delivery of SCPs, and unrealistic expectations that one-time delivery of an SCP would improve patient outcomes weeks or months later.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“two paired reviewers independently screened study titles and abstracts and reviewed full-text articles as needed to determine study eligibility. Discussion of discordant eligibility ratings or involvement of a third rater was used to address disagreements.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the review examined the impact of SCPs only on health outcomes and health care delivery, and did not examine other aspects of SCPs (eg, survivor and provider preferences for SCP content and delivery methods).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the review was limited to published studies in English and, thus, did not include relevant unpublished studies as well as research in other languages.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The outcomes assessed in the included studies adequately capture the benefits SCPs are intended to produce, so that null findings reflect a true absence of effect rather than unmeasured or unassessed benefits.
“Existing research provides little evidence that SCPs improve health outcomes and health care delivery.”
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?
In the citing paper
“a previous systematic review of 24 articles comprising 11 nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies concluded that the delivery of a SCP alone is unlikely to achieve the desired benefits, and a more comprehensive approach to survivorship care delivery is needed.43,44”
From Implementing a PROACTive Care Pathway to Empower and Support Survivors of Breast Cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [44]
In the citing paper
“a previous systematic review of 24 articles comprising 11 nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies concluded that the delivery of a SCP alone is unlikely to achieve the desired benefits, and a more comprehensive approach to survivorship care delivery is needed.43,44”
From Implementing a PROACTive Care Pathway to Empower and Support Survivors of Breast Cancer (2023) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Conflicting study citation for identifying the PCP responsible for follow-up
MinorThe results attribute improved identification of the PCP responsible for follow-up to study 27, but the discussion attributes the same finding to study 23.
“greater likelihood of correctly identifying their PCP as responsible for follow-up care,27”
“greater likelihood of survivors correctly identifying their PCP as responsible for follow-up care.23”
Citations
Cites
Curran, G. M., Bauer, M., Mittman, B., Pyne, J. M., & Stetler, C. (2012) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182408812 · Cited by 4,058
An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist
Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L. J., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J. L., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 · Cited by 2,168
From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor - Lost in Transition
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council (2006) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/11613 · Cited by 747
Runowicz, C. D., Leach, C. R., Henry, N. L., Henry, K. S., Mackey, H. T., Cowens‐Alvarado, R. L., Cannady, R. S., Pratt‐Chapman, M. L., Edge, S. B., Jacobs, L. A., et al. (2016) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21319 · Cited by 728
Grunfeld, E., Levine, M. N., Julian, J. A., Coyle, D., Szechtman, B., Mirsky, D., Verma, S., Dent, S. F., Sawka, C. A., Pritchard, K. I., et al. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.03.2235 · Cited by 545
Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial
Grunfeld, E., Mant, D., Yudkin, P. L., Adewuyi-Dalton, R., Cole, D., Stewart, J., Fitzpatrick, R. M., & Vessey, M. P. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7058.665 · Cited by 403
Grunfeld, E., Julian, J. A., Pond, G. R., Maunsell, E., Coyle, D., Folkes, A., Joy, A. A., Provencher, L., Rayson, D., Rheaume, D., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.36.8373 · Cited by 322
Nekhlyudov, L., O'malley, D. M., & Hudson, S. V. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30570-8 · Cited by 249
Survivorship care plans in research and practice
Salz, T., Oeffinger, K. C., McCabe, M. S., Layne, T. M., & Bach, P. B. (2012) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20142 · Cited by 241
Survivorship care plans in cancer: a systematic review of care plan outcomes
Brennan, M. E., Gormally, J. F., Butow, P., Boyle, F. M., & Spillane, A. J. (2014) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.505 · Cited by 221
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- American College of Surgeons Commision on Cancer, 2012, Cancer Program Standards 2012: Ensuring Patient-Centered Care
- Martin TA, 2013, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 11, 258
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Improved models of care for cancer survivors
Jefford, M., Howell, D., Li, Q., Lisy, K., Maher, J., Alfano, C. M., Rynderman, M., & Emery, J. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00306-3 · Cited by 281
Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Survivorship Practices: An Overview
Janssen, S. H. M., van der Graaf, W. T. A., van der Meer, D. J., Manten‐Horst, E., & Husson, O. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13194847 · Cited by 216
“Despite widespread effort, the use of SCPs in practice remains suboptimal, and evidence regarding their impact on survivors’ outcomes is limited [150–153].”
Vaz-Luis, I., Masiero, M., Cavaletti, G., Cervantes, A., Chlebowski, R. T., Curigliano, G., Felip, E., Ferreira, A. R., Ganz, P. A., Hegarty, J., et al. (2022) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.1941 · Cited by 208
Survivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes
Hill, R., Wakefield, C. E., Cohn, R. J., Fardell, J. E., Brierley, M., Kothe, E. J., Jacobsen, P. B., Hetherington, K., & Mercieca‐Bebber, R. (2019) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0184 · Cited by 186
“However, these reviews were descriptive (rather than quantitative), and it was difficult to draw conclusions because of design differences noted in included studies [14, 15].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationMichel, G., Mulder, R. L., van der Pal, H. J. H., Skinner, R., Bárdi, E., Brown, M. C., Vetsch, J., Frey, E., Windsor, R. E., Kremer, L. C. M., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-019-00795-5 · Cited by 117
“However, clear evidence for the effectiveness of an SCP to improve LTFU and survivor’s health in the long term is still lacking [102].”
BackgroundAlfano, C. M., Jefford, M., Maher, J., Birken, S. A., & Mayer, D. K. (2019) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.1200/edbk_238267 · Cited by 124
Self-citationBlueprint for cancer research: Critical gaps and opportunities
Elmore, L. W., Greer, S. F., Daniels, E. C., Saxe, C. C., Melner, M. H., Krawiec, G. M., Cance, W. G., & Phelps, W. C. (2020) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21652 · Cited by 124
Clinical Oncology Society of Australia position statement on cancer survivorship care
Vardy, J. L., Chan, R. J., Koczwara, B., Lisy, K., Cohn, R. J., Joske, D. J. L., Dhillon, H. M., & Jefford, M. (2019) · Australian Journal of General Practice · doi:10.31128/ajgp-07-19-4999 · Cited by 114
The ‘Survivorship Passport’ for childhood cancer survivors
Haupt, R., Essiaf, S., Dellacasa, C. M., et al. (2018) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.006 · Cited by 112
“A recent systematic review of studies addressing this issue [27] has shown only a minimal evidence of a beneficial effect that mainly refers to quality of life measures, but not on distal health outcomes.”
BackgroundLong-term care for people treated for cancer during childhood and adolescence
Tonorezos, E. S., Cohn, R. J., Glaser, A., Lewin, J. H., Poon, E. Y. L., Wakefield, C. E., & Oeffinger, K. C. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)00460-3 · Cited by 122
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, Version 2.2019
Sanft, T. B., Denlinger, C. S., Armenian, S. H., Baker, K. S., Broderick, G. A., Demark‐Wahnefried, W., Friedman, D. L., Goldman, M. E., Hudson, M. M., Khakpour, N., et al. (2019) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.0034 · Cited by 104
Self-citationYan, A. P., Chen, Y., Henderson, T. O., et al. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.19.01825 · Cited by 84
Self-citationMollica, M. A., McWhirter, G. C., Tonorezos, E. S., Fenderson, J. L., Freyer, D. R., Jefford, M., Luevano, C. J., Mullett, T. W., Nasso, S. F., Schilling, E. J., et al. (2024) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-024-01602-6 · Cited by 81
“First, consensus meeting discussions included the need to de-emphasize survivorship care plan documentation, given limited evidence on improving survivor outcomes [20].”
BackgroundSelf-citationChallenges and opportunities in the care of survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers
Fidler-Benaoudia, M. M., Frobisher, C., Hawkins, M. M., & Nathan, P. C. (2019) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.27668 · Cited by 78
Davidson, A. R., Kelly, J. T., Ball, L., Morgan, M. A. J., & Reidlinger, D. P. (2022) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-021-01595-6 · Cited by 86
“However, care plans alone did not influence distal outcomes such as patient-reported health status, perceptions of care, health care delivery, and health care use [81].”
BackgroundHardiman, K. M., Felder, S. I., Friedman, G., Migaly, J., Paquette, I. M., & Feingold, D. L. (2021) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000001984 · Cited by 72
Blaes, A. H., Adamson, P. C., Foxhall, L. E., & Bhatia, S. (2020) · JCO Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/jop.19.00801 · Cited by 62
Majhail, N. S., Murphy, E., Laud, P. W., Preussler, J. M., Denzen, E. M., Abetti, B., Adams, A. J., Besser, R. M., Burns, L. J., Černý, J., et al. (2018) · Haematologica · doi:10.3324/haematol.2018.203919 · Cited by 60
“Age at HCT, years; Median (range) 59 (19-81) 59 (20-77)”
BackgroundLai-Kwon, J. E., Heynemann, S., Hart, N. H., Chan, R. J., Smith, T. J., Nekhlyudov, L., & Jefford, M. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.22.02212 · Cited by 54
Follow-Up Care for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Across the Globe: Survey Findings From 27 Countries
Mollica, M. A., Mayer, D. K., Oeffinger, K. C., Kim, Y., Buckenmaier, S. S., Sivaram, S., Muha, C., Taib, N. A. M., Andritsch, E., Asuzu, C. C., et al. (2020) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/go.20.00180 · Cited by 59
Self-citationSurvivorship after adolescent and young adult cancer: models of care, disparities, and opportunities
Berkman, A. M., Betts, A. C., Beauchemin, M., Parsons, S. K., Freyer, D. R., & Roth, M. E. (2024) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djae119 · Cited by 57
Hart, N. H., Nekhlyudov, L., Smith, T. J., Yee, J., Fitch, M. I., Crawford, G. B., Koczwara, B., Ashbury, F. D., Lustberg, M. B., Mollica, M. A., et al. (2024) · JCO Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/op.23.00716 · Cited by 59
Beesley, V. L., Alemayehu, C. M., & Webb, P. M. (2019) · European Journal of Cancer Care · doi:10.1111/ecc.13057 · Cited by 48
Faller, H., Hass, H. G., Engehausen, D. G., Reuss-Borst, M. A., & Wöckel, A. (2019) · Acta Oncologica · doi:10.1080/0284186x.2018.1543947 · Cited by 44
“Providing patients with a survivorship care plan detailing the available resources might help alleviating the need for coordination of care, although evidence is insufficient at this point [43].”
BackgroundRastogi, S., Tevaarwerk, A. J., Sesto, M. E., Remortel, B. J. V., Date, P., Gangnon, R. E., Thraen-Borowski, K. M., & Cadmus‐Bertram, L. (2020) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5524 · Cited by 40
Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer
Stal, J., Miller, K. A., Mullett, T. W., Boughey, J. C., Francescatti, A. B., Funk, E., Nelson, H., & Freyer, D. R. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.18736 · Cited by 42
de Rooij, B. H., Ezendam, N. P. M., Vos, M. C., Pijnenborg, J. M. A., Boll, D., Kruitwagen, R. F. P. M., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2018) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.31844 · Cited by 36
“Despite these efforts, the evidence base for the impact of SCPs among cancer survivors is still inconclusive, and directions for future implementation of SCPs remain under debate.(3) Randomized controlled trials (RTCs) have failed to identify the benefits of SCP delivery on patient satisfaction, quality of life, and d…”
BackgroundOncology Medical Home: ASCO and COA Standards
Woofter, K., Kennedy, E. B., Adelson, K. B., Bowman, R., Brodie, R., Dickson, N. R., Gerber, R., Fields, K. K., Murtaugh, C., Polite, B. N., et al. (2021) · JCO Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/op.21.00167 · Cited by 39
“In another review that included a similar group of studies to Hill et al, the authors found that it was difficult to draw conclusions about SCPs because most studies focused on the feasibility and acceptability of SCP delivery; although some beneficial effects were found, they were limited to single outcomes from sing…”
Hart, N. H., Nekhlyudov, L., Smith, T. J., Yee, J., Fitch, M. I., Crawford, G. B., Koczwara, B., Ashbury, F. D., Lustberg, M. B., Mollica, M. A., et al. (2024) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-024-08465-8 · Cited by 44
“While existing literature has not shown the necessary evidence that survivorship care plans improve clinical outcomes [39–41], cancer survivors and caregivers continue to value, and report benefit from such documents, supporting their use [42–44].”
BackgroundThe Future of Childhood Cancer Survivorship
Dixon, S. B., Chow, E. J., Hjorth, L., Hudson, M. M., Kremer, L. C. M., Morton, L. M., Nathan, P. C., Ness, K. K., Oeffinger, K. C., & Armstrong, G. T. (2020) · Pediatric Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2020.07.013 · Cited by 38
Su, H.-C. I., Stark, S. S., Kwan, B., Boles, S. G., Chingos, D. T., Ehren, J. L., Gorman, J. R., Krychman, M., Romero, S. A. D., Mao, J. J. J., et al. (2019) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-019-05260-6 · Cited by 30
Breast cancer survivorship in rural settings: a systematic review
Anbari, A. B., Wanchai, A., & Graves, R. S. (2020) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-020-05308-0 · Cited by 32
McDonough, A. L., Rabin, J. T., Horick, N., et al. (2019) · Journal of Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/jop.18.00740 · Cited by 34
Geramita, E. M., Parker, I. R., Brufsky, J. W., Diergaarde, B. B., & Londen, G. J. V. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-019-01585-4 · Cited by 35
“Moreover, a recent systematic review suggests that survivorship care plans may have limited impact on health outcomes and patient satisfaction [25].”
BackgroundTurner, J., Yates, P. M., Kenny, L., Gordon, L. G., Burmeister, B. H., Hughes, B. G. M., McCarthy, A. L., Perry, C., Chan, R. J., Paviour, A., et al. (2019) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-019-04748-7 · Cited by 31
Hua, A., Sesto, M. E., Zhang, X., et al. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-018-1457-y · Cited by 30
Use and impact of breast cancer survivorship care plans: a systematic review
Joshi, A., Larkins, S., Evans, R., Moodley, N., Brown, A., & Sabesan, S. S. (2021) · Breast Cancer · doi:10.1007/s12282-021-01267-4 · Cited by 28
“This review builds on findings from a previous review of SCPs in BC which considered RCTs exclusively [25] and other reviews that addressed SCPs in several cancers and did not consider BC independently [16, 55, 56].”
Pinto, M., Calafiore, D., Piccirillo, M. C., Costa, M., Taşkıran, Ö. Ö., & Alessandro de, S. I. R. E. (2022) · Current Oncology Reports · doi:10.1007/s11912-022-01262-8 · Cited by 28
Factors associated with health-related quality of life in a cohort of cancer survivors in New Jersey
Manne, S. L., Devine, K. A., Hudson, S. V., Kashy, D. A., O’Malley, D. M., Paddock, L. E., Bandera, E. V., Llanos, A. A. M., Fong, A. J., Singh, N., et al. (2023) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-023-11098-5 · Cited by 24
“Although Jefford and colleagues [51] found that survivors who stated they had been provided a care plan reported higher HRQoL, a review of the literature on survivorship care plans published in 2018 concluded that the benefit of survivorship care plans on HRQoL was not sufficiently shown from the existing literature […”
BackgroundUser-centered design of a longitudinal care plan for children with medical complexity
Desai, A. D., Wang, G., Wignall, J., Kinard, D., Singh, V., Adams, S. L., & Pratt, W. (2020) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa193 · Cited by 25
“Caregivers N1⁄4 10 Age, years <35 2 (20) 36–45 3 (30) >45 5 (50) Ethnicity Hispanic or Latinx 3 (30) Not Hispanic or Latinx 7 (70) Race White 9 (90) Not White 1 (10) Level of education At most high school graduate or GED 2 (20) Some college/university without a 4-year degree 3 (30) 4-year university degree or more 5 (…”
Thanarajasingam, G., Minasian, L. M., Bhatnagar, V., Cavalli, F., Claro, R. A. D., Dueck, A. C., El-Galaly, T. C., Everest, N., Geißler, J., Gisselbrecht, C., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Haematology · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(22)00045-x · Cited by 27
Hawkins, M. M., Bhatia, S., Henderson, T. O., Nathan, P. C., Yan, A. P., Teepen, J. C., & Morton, L. M. (2020) · Pediatric Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2020.07.006 · Cited by 25
Self-citationReceipt of a survivorship care plan and self-reported health behaviors among cancer survivors
Shay, L. A., Schmidt, S., Dioun, S. I., Grimes, A., & Embry, L. M. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-019-00740-6 · Cited by 25
Heiden, B. T., Eaton, D. B., Chang, S., Yan, Y., Schoen, M. W., Chen, L., Smock, N., Patel, M. R., Kreisel, D., Nava, R. G., et al. (2021) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.12.634 · Cited by 25
Austin, J. D., Robertson, M. C., Shay, L. A., & Balasubramanian, B. A. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-019-00785-7 · Cited by 25
Luo, X., Li, J., Chen, M., Gong, J., Xu, Y., & Li, Q. (2021) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5657 · Cited by 24
“Evidence has shown that SCPs appeared to be feasible and had the potential to improve patient perception of care coordination, but there was minimal evidence that SCPs affected patient‐reported outcomes, which was consistent with a previous review.(71) This reminds us to reflect on the mechanisms and role involved in…”
BackgroundResultHong, Y.-R., Yadav, S., Suk, R., Khanijahani, A., Erim, D., & Turner, K. (2021) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.3918 · Cited by 24
Taylor, K., Chivers, P., Bulsara, C., Joske, D. J. L., Bulsara, M. K., & Monterosso, L. (2019) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2019.03.005 · Cited by 24
Contemporary consumer perspectives on prostate cancer survivorship: Fifty voices
Dunn, J. C., Ralph, N., Green, A., Frydenberg, M., & Chambers, S. K. (2020) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5306 · Cited by 23
“A recent review identified a lack of follow-up care as a key reason why men with prostate cancer are left with unmet needs.(29) This issue is made more problematic by the lack of review-based evidence for care coordination and surveillance for recurrence.”
BackgroundTesting the Impact of a Cancer Survivorship Patient Engagement Toolkit on Selected Health Outcomes
Nahm, E., Miller, K. D., McQuaige, M., Corbitt, N., Jaidar, N., Rosenblatt, P., Zhu, S., Son, H., Hertsenberg, L., Wickersham, K. E., et al. (2019) · Oncology nursing forum · doi:10.1188/19.onf.572-584 · Cited by 21
Integrating Primary Care Providers through the Seasons of Survivorship
Chaput, G., & SUSSMAN, J. S. (2019) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3747/co.26.4687 · Cited by 24
Survivorship objectives in comprehensive cancer control plans: a systematic review
Mollica, M. A., Falisi, A. L., Geiger, A. M., Jacobsen, P. B., Lunsford, N. B., Pratt‐Chapman, M. L., Townsend, J. S., & Nekhlyudov, L. (2020) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-019-00832-3 · Cited by 19
“Implementation of SCPs has been challenging, however, due to unreimbursed clinical time and human and technological resources to support SCP development and delivery to patients and other providers [29, 30].”
BackgroundSelf-citationHealth information technology to support cancer survivorship care planning: A systematic review
Mikles, S. P., Griffin, A. C., & Chung, A. E. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab134 · Cited by 19
Implementing a PROACTive Care Pathway to Empower and Support Survivors of Breast Cancer
Franzoi, M. A., Degousée, L., Martin, E., Semedo, P. M., Aupomerol, M., Soldato, D., Di Meglio, A., Chiodi, C., Barbier, A., Chaouachi, H., et al. (2023) · JCO Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/op.23.00016 · Cited by 18
Bateman, J. P., Egan, R., & Maclennan, K. (2023) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09580-8 · Cited by 18
“Other studies have described barriers to the provision of survivorship care plans to cancer survivors, including lack of time and resources among healthcare providers; lack of clarity around who is responsible for preparing the plan and lack of reimbursement for this role; and poor communication and collaboration betw…”
BackgroundDelivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis: One Decade Later
Nekhlyudov, L., Levit, L. A., & Ganz, P. A. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco-24-01243 · Cited by 21
King, J. E., O'Connor, M. C., Shohet, E., et al. (2022) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.30070 · Cited by 17
Syrjala, K. L., Walsh, C., Yi, J. C., Leisenring, W. M., Rajotte, E. J., Voutsinas, J. M., Ganz, P. A., Jacobs, L. A., Palmer, S. C., Partridge, A. H., et al. (2021) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-021-01105-8 · Cited by 20
“This finding stands in contrast to other RCTs with adult survivors and meta-analyses that demonstrate no improved outcomes between SCP recipients and controls for distress, anxiety, depression, confidence in survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, self-efficacy, or with satisfaction with follow-up care and infor…”
ResultPerspectives of Survivorship Care Plans Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors: A Pilot Study
Krok‐Schoen, J. L., Naughton, M. J., Noonan, A. M., Pisegna, J., DeSalvo, J., & Lustberg, M. B. (2020) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/1073274820917208 · Cited by 18
Cancer survivorship—a framework for quality cancer care
Zebrack, B. (2023) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djad266 · Cited by 18
Deckx, L., Chow, K. H., Askew, D. A., van Driel, M., Mitchell, G. K., & van den Akker, M. (2020) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5612 · Cited by 19
“Although there is little evidence that survivorship care plans improve health outcomes, they do have positive effects on, for example, the amount of information received and satisfaction with care.(62) As most survivorship care plans include a psychosocial component, they might also serve as an”
BackgroundChahine, S., & Urquhart, R. (2019) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-019-04685-5 · Cited by 18
Parker, P. A., Banerjee, S. C., Matasar, M. J., Bylund, C. L., Schofield, E., Li, Y., Jacobsen, P. B., Astrow, A. B., Leventhal, H., Horwitz, S. M., et al. (2020) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5371 · Cited by 17
“For example, a recent systematic review found that there was little evidence that survivorship care plans impacted the most commonly assessed outcomes (eg, physical, functional, and psychological well-being), though survivorship care plans did impact amount of information received and satisfaction with care.(11) We re…”
BackgroundSelf-citationArthur, E. K., Pisegna, J., Oliveri, J. M., Aker, H., & Krok‐Schoen, J. L. (2022) · Journal of Geriatric Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jgo.2022.08.004 · Cited by 16
Krok‐Schoen, J. L., DeSalvo, J., Klemanski, D., Stephens, C., Noonan, A. M., Bose‐Brill, S., & Lustberg, M. B. (2019) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-019-04855-5 · Cited by 17
“Survivorship care plans (SCPs) may or may not improve existing and potential survivorship issues experienced by breast cancer survivors after cancer treatment [5].”
BackgroundPrimary Care Provider Involvement in Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Care
Radhakrishnan, A., Reyes‐Gastelum, D., Gay, B. L., Hawley, S. T., Hamilton, A. S., Ward, K. C., Wallner, L. P., & Haymart, M. R. (2020) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa437 · Cited by 18
Chow, E. J., Baldwin, L., Hagen, A. M., Hudson, M. M., Gibson, T. M., Komal, K., McDonald, A. J., Nathan, P. C., Syrjala, K. L., Taylor, S. L., et al. (2019) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2019.105915 · Cited by 16
Dhruva, A., Wu, C., Miaskowski, C. A., Hartogensis, W., Rugo, H. S., Adler, S. R., Kaptchuk, T. J., Kelkar, R., Agarawal, S., Vadodaria, A., et al. (2020) · Global Advances in Health and Medicine · doi:10.1177/2164956120964712 · Cited by 18
“While patients may respond positively to elements of SCPs, such as satisfaction with the information received,(24) SCPs do not address symptoms or QOL outcomes.(23) Therefore, the investigation of other approaches that address symptoms and QOL may prove complementary to SCPs.”
BackgroundCortiana, V., Abbas, R. H., Nadar, S., Mahendru, D., Gambill, J. L., Menon, G. P., Park, C. H., & Leyfman, Y. (2024) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers16061216 · Cited by 15
“This forward-looking approach ensures that interventions are precisely aligned with each patient’s specific risks and needs, optimizing the program’s overall impact [16].”
BackgroundHohmann, N. S., McDaniel, C. C., Mason, S. W., et al. (2020) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/jphs.12334 · Cited by 15
Austin, J. D., Allicock, M. A., Atem, F., Lee, S. J. C., Fernández, M. E., & Balasubramanian, B. A. (2020) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-020-00896-6 · Cited by 14
Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2025: An urgent call to optimize health after cancer
Schapira, L., & Duffy, C. (2025) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.70017 · Cited by 15
Hall, A. G., Syrjala, K. L., Ketterl, T. G., Ganz, P. A., Jacobs, L. A., Palmer, S. C., Partridge, A. H., Rajotte, E. J., Mueller, B. A., & Baker, K. S. (2023) · Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · doi:10.1089/jayao.2022.0109 · Cited by 15
“However, studies evaluating the efficacy of survivorship care plans have not demonstrated a strong impact on adherence 38–40 ; therefore, exclusion of these patients may not have significantly altered adherence levels in our analyses.”
Heiden, B. T., Eaton, D. B., Chang, S., et al. (2022) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djac208 · Cited by 15
Chu, A. K., Mutsaers, B., & Lebel, S. (2022) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol29100577 · Cited by 14
“Thus, it appears that studies should measure outcomes that are more proximally related to SCPs’ stated goals of improving the coordination of follow-up care, increasing understanding of provider roles, and increasing knowledge of follow-up care for patient and PCPs [7].”
BackgroundInfluentialGrunfeld, E. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.19.01098 · Cited by 16
Understanding and addressing global inequities in cancer survivorship care
Jacobsen, P. B., & Mollica, M. A. (2019) · Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Research and Practice · doi:10.1097/or9.0000000000000005 · Cited by 14
Self-citationBeaupin, L. K., Uwazurike, O. C., & Hydeman, J. A. (2018) · Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · doi:10.1089/jayao.2018.0061 · Cited by 14
Current status of and future perspectives on care for cancer survivors in China
Song, J. Y., Li, R., Hu, X., Ding, G., Chen, M., & Jin, C. (2023) · Global Health & Medicine · doi:10.35772/ghm.2023.01014 · Cited by 14
Swoboda, C. M., Fareed, N., Walker, D. M., & Huerta, T. R. (2019) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.036 · Cited by 14
Implementation of a Brief Screening Tool to Identify Needs of Breast Cancer Survivors
McDonough, A. L., Lei, Y. Y., Kwak, A. H., Haggett, D., Jimenez, R., Johnston, K. T., Moy, B., Spring, L. M., & Peppercorn, J. M. (2020) · Clinical Breast Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2020.07.006 · Cited by 12
Tulk, J., Wurz, A. J., Hou, S., et al. (2023) · The Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/jrh.12774 · Cited by 13
Wallner, L. P., Abrahamse, P. H., Gargaro, J. G., Radhakrishnan, A., Mullins, M. A., An, L. C., Griggs, J. J., Schott, A. F., Ayanian, J. Z., Sales, A. E., et al. (2021) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-021-06257-w · Cited by 15
FOX, J. A., Thamm, C., Mitchell, G. K., et al. (2021) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/hsc.13549 · Cited by 13
Mohamed, M., Ahmed, M. M., Williams, A. M., Gilmore, N. J., Lin, P., Yilmaz, S., Jensen‐Battaglia, M., Mustian, K. M., Janelsins, M. C., & Mohile, S. G. (2024) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-024-01589-0 · Cited by 13
Kacew, A. J., Jacobson, S., Sheade, J. B., Patel, A. A., Hlubocky, F. J., Lee, N. K., Henderson, T. O., Schneider, J. A., & Strohbehn, G. W. (2021) · Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · doi:10.1089/jayao.2021.0096 · Cited by 12
Self-citationHas the Quality of Patient–Provider Communication About Survivorship Care Improved?
Rai, A., Chawla, N., Han, X., Rim, S. H., Smith, T. G., de Moor, J. S., & Yabroff, K. R. (2019) · Journal of Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/jop.19.00157 · Cited by 13
“Other challenges include clinician time required to create SCPs, lack of reimbursement for this time, and the lack of evidence that SCPs improve outcomes.(19,34,36,37) Concerns also have been raised about an overemphasis on the means— the documentation and distribution of SCPs—but an insufficient focus on the ends: st…”
BackgroundFollow-up and Cancer Survivorship
Neuman, H. B., & Schumacher, J. R. (2022) · Surgical Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.suc.2022.08.009 · Cited by 15
Davis, S. N., O’Malley, D. M., Bator, A., Ohman‐Strickland, P., Clemow, L., Ferrante, J. M., Crabtree, B. F., Miller, S. M., Findley, P. A., & Hudson, S. V. (2019) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-019-5531-6 · Cited by 11
Hill, R., Mercieca‐Bebber, R., Fardell, J. E., Wakefield, C. E., Signorelli, C., Webber, K., Cohn, R. J., & ANZCHOG Study Group (2023) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.34984 · Cited by 11
Sauro, K. M., Maini, A., Machan, M., Lorenzetti, D., Chandarana, S. P., & Dort, J. C. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043374 · Cited by 11
Predictors and impact of survivorship care plans and survivorship care visits
Saiganesh, H., Duffy, C. M., Chrysanthopoulou, S. A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-023-01334-z · Cited by 11
“In 2015, the Commission on Cancer made provision of an SCP a quality benchmark, despite the lack of evidence of its impact on the quality of care post-treatment [5, 6].”
Delivering long-term cancer care in primary care
Gopal, D. P., de Rooij, B. H., Ezendam, N. P. M., et al. (2020) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp20x709481 · Cited by 11
Banegas, M. P., Emerson, M. A., Adams, A. S., Achacoso, N. S., Chawla, N., Alexeeff, S., & Habel, L. A. (2018) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-018-0716-6 · Cited by 13
The Handbook of Wellness Medicine
Snellings, J. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108650182 · Cited by 11
Dixit, N., Burke, N. J., Rodriguez, G. M., Sarkar, U., Cicerelli, B., DeVore, J. D., & Nápoles, A. M. (2020) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-019-05277-z · Cited by 11
Tawfik, B., Jaffe, S. A., Mohler, L., Oomen, J., Gil, I. S., Chamberlain, R., Gagnon, S., Kano, M. A., Gundelach, A. C., Ryan, S. R., et al. (2021) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06043-w · Cited by 11
“Most SCP implementation studies do not include delivery of the SCPs to PCPs [15], but those that do include this information describe intensive efforts to ensure that PCPs respond to the SCP and integrate it into their practice [22].”
BackgroundKozul, C., Stafford, L., Little, R., Bousman, C., Park, A., Shanahan, K., & Mann, G. B. (2020) · Clinical journal of oncology nursing · doi:10.1188/20.cjon.e34-e42 · Cited by 11
Hou, S., Tran, A., Cho, S., Forbes, C., Forster, V. J., Stokoe, M., Allapitan, E., Wakefield, C. E., Wiener, L. S., Heathcote, L. C., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.867151 · Cited by 9
“Other, more recent studies have found a similar sign of resilience and protective mechanisms identified in survivors and their families as they navigate the pandemic (e.g., Wimberly et al., 2021; Jacobson et al., 2022).”
ResultHealth‐related quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors of diverse sexual orientations
Boehmer, U., Ozonoff, A., Winter, M. R., Berklein, F. C., Potter, J. E., Hartshorn, K. L., Ward, K. C., Ceballos, R. M., & Clark, M. A. (2021) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.33762 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacobsen, P. B., DeRosa, A. P., Henderson, T. O., Mayer, D. K., Moskowitz, C. S., Paskett, E. D., & Rowland, J. H.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jacobsen, Paul B.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2018-07-10
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 2088-2100
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- PMC
- PMC6036622
- OpenAlex
- W2803946275
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 4.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748, P30CA016058)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- cancer survivorship care plans, cancer survivors, follow-up care, patient-reported outcomes, health care utilization, satisfaction with care, psychophysical well-being, functional well-being
- MeSH terms
- Cancer Survivors, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Care Planning, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
