Table 2.
Perceptions of planning for survivorship care at 12 month survey, overall and by cancer type
| All (N=230) | Breast (N=183) | Colorectal (N=28) | Lung (N=19) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (col%) | n (col %) | n (col %) | n (col %) | ||
| Discussed late or long-term side effects | 0.530 | ||||
| Yes, discussed in detail | 85 (37.0) | 66 (36.1) | 12 (42.9) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Yes, discussed somewhat | 101 (43.9) | 82 (44.8) | 12 (42.9) | 7 (36.8) | |
| No, did not discuss at all | 37 (16.1) | 31 (16.9) | 3 (10.7) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Don’t know | 7 (3.0) | 4 (2.2) | 1 (3.6) | 2 (10.5) | |
| Received treatment summary | 0.178 | ||||
| No | 79 (35.0) | 69 (38.1) | 7 (25.0) | 3 (17.6) | |
| If no, would like to have received written summary | 0.456 | ||||
| Yes | 59 (74.7) | 52 (75.4) | 4 (57.1) | 3 (100.0) | |
| No | 17 (21.5) | 15 (21.7) | 2 (28.6) | 0 | |
| Not sure | 3 (3.8) | 2 (2.9) | 1 (14.3) | 0 | |
| Yes | 100 (44.2) | 73 (40.3) | 16 (57.1) | 11 (64.7) | |
| If yes, can find it easily | 0.483 | ||||
| Yes | 90 (90.0) | 65 (89.0) | 16 (100.0) | 9 (81.8) | |
| No | 7 (7.0) | 6 (8.2) | 0 | 1 (9.1) | |
| Not sure | 3 (3.0) | 2 (2.7) | 0 | 1 (9.1) | |
| Not sure | 47 (20.8) | 69 (38.1) | 7 (25.0) | 3 (17.6) | |
| Received written follow-up plan at end of treatment | 0.737 | ||||
| Yes | 175 (76.8) | 142 (77.6) | 21 (75.0) | 12 (70.6) | |
| No | 37 (16.2) | 27 (14.8) | 6 (21.4) | 4 (23.5) | |
| Not sure | 16 (7.0) | 14 (7.7) | 1 (3.6) | 1 (5.9) | |
| Discussion with cancer doctor about who would provide follow-up | 0.516 | ||||
| Yes | 159 (69.4) | 129 (70.9) | 18 (64.3) | 12 (63.2) | |
| No | 64 (27.9) | 47 (25.8) | 10 (35.7) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Not sure | 6 (2.6) | 6 (3.3) | 0 | 0 | |
| Discussion with primary care doctor about who would provide follow-up | 0.422 | ||||
| Yes | 72 (31.3) | 53 (29.0) | 11 (39.3) | 8 (42.1) | |
| No | 155 (67.4) | 128 (69.9) | 16 (57.1) | 11 (57.9) | |
| Not sure | 3 (1.3) | 2 (1.1) | 1 (3.6) | 0 | |
| Discussion with any other doctor about who would provide follow-up | 0.870 | ||||
| Yes | 72 (31.4) | 57 (31.3) | 10 (35.7) | 5 (26.3) | |
| No | 154 (67.2) | 122 (67.0) | 18 (64.3) | 14 (73.7) | |
| Not sure | 3 (1.3) | 3 (1.6) | 0 | 0 | |
| Discussion with cancer doctor about who would handle care besides cancer | 0.007 | ||||
| Yes | 62 (27.1) | 49 (26.9) | 9 (32.1) | 4 (21.1) | |
| No | 164 (71.6) | 132 (72.5) | 19 (67.9) | 13 (68.4) | |
| Not sure | 3 (1.3) | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 2 (10.5) | |
| Discussion with primary care doctor about who would handle care besides cancer | 0.537 | ||||
| Yes | 93 (40.6) | 71 (39.0) | 15 (53.6) | 7 (36.8) | |
| No | 132 (57.6) | 107 (58.8) | 13 (46.4) | 12 (63.2) | |
| Not sure | 4 (1.7) | 4 (2.2) | 0 | 0 | |
| Discussion with any other doctor about who would handle care besides cancer | 0.171 | ||||
| Yes | 32 (13.9) | 23 (12.6) | 6 (21.4) | 3 (15.8) | |
| No | 196 (85.2) | 159 (86.9) | 22 (78.6) | 15 (78.9) | |
| Not sure | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 1 (5.3) | |
| Doctor considered main doctor for cancer follow-up care | 0.896 | ||||
| None considered main doctor | 34 (14.8) | 29 (15.8) | 3 (10.7) | 2 (10.5) | |
| Yes | 195 (84.8) | 153 (83.6) | 25 (89.3) | 17 (89.5) | |
| Primary care | 10 (5.1) | 3 (2.0) | 4 (16.0) | 3 (17.6) | 0.005 |
| Cancer specialist | 175 (89.7) | 142 (92.8) | 21 (84.0) | 12 (70.6) | |
| Ob/Gyn | 3 (1.5) | 2 (1.3) | 0 | 1 (5.9) | |
| Urologist | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Gastroenterologist | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Other | 7 (3.6) | 6 (3.9) | 0 | 1 (5.9) | |
| Not sure | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.5) | 0 | 0 | |
| Ideal doctor for cancer-related follow-up | 0.472 | ||||
| Cancer specialist | 191 (83.0) | 154 (84.2) | 21 (75.0) | 16 (84.2) | |
| Primary care | 29 (12.6) | 21 (11.5) | 6 (21.4) | 2 (10.5) | |
| Other | 3 (1.3) | 2 (1.1) | 0 | 1 (5.3) | |
| Not sure | 7 (3.0) | 6 (3.3) | 1 (3.6) | 0 | |
| Reasons for ideal doctor selection* | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |
| Importance of provider’s knowledge or expertise | 4.9 (0.3) | 4.9 (0.3) | 4.9 (0.3) | 5 (0) | 0.564 |
| Importance of provider’s caring attitude | 4.6 (0.7) | 4.6 (0.7) | 4.6 (0.7) | 4.7 (0.6) | 0.557 |
| Importance of provider’s communication skills | 4.8 (0.5) | 4.8 (0.5) | 4.7 (0.5) | 4.9 (0.3) | 0.376 |
| Importance in ease of making appointments | 4.3 (0.8) | 4.2 (0.9) | 4.6 (0.6) | 4.4 (0.8) | 0.048 |
| Importance of provider’s convenient location | 4.1 (1.0) | 4.0 (1.0) | 4.4 (0.8) | 3.8 (1.2) | 0.074 |
| Primary Care Delivery of Survivorship Care Scale (modified) | n (col %) | N (col %) | N (col %) | N (col %) | p-value |
| PCP communicates well with oncologist | 0.003 | ||||
| Strongly disagree | 5 (2.2) | 3 (1.7) | 1 (3.7) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Disagree | 9 (4.0) | 4 (2.2) | 1 (3.7) | 4 (21.1) | |
| Not sure | 129 (57.3) | 112 (62.6) | 12 (44.4) | 5 (26.3) | |
| Agree | 37 (16.4) | 28 (15.6) | 5 (18.5) | 4 (21.1) | |
| Strongly agree | 45 (20.0) | 32 (17.9) | 8 (29.6) | 5 (26.3) | |
| PCP is knowledgeable about follow-up care for cancer survivors | 0.019 | ||||
| Strongly disagree | 2 (0.9) | 0 | 1 (3.7) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Disagree | 3 (1.3) | 2 (1.1) | 0 | 1 (5.3) | |
| Not sure | 102 (44.9) | 88 (48.6) | 9 (33.3) | 5 (26.3) | |
| Agree | 72 (31.7) | 57 (21.5) | 7 (25.9) | 8 (42.1) | |
| Strongly agree | 48 (21.1) | 34 (18.8) | 10 (37.0) | 4 (21.1) | |
| PCP aware of long-term side effects of cancer treatment | 0.256 | ||||
| Strongly disagree | 1 (0.4) | 1 (0.6) | 0 | 0 | |
| Disagree | 2 (0.9) | 1 (0.6) | 0 | 1 (5.3) | |
| Not sure | 101 (44.5) | 85 (47.0) | 10 (37.0) | 6 (31.6) | |
| Agree | 73 (32.2) | 59 (32.6) | 7 (25.9) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Strongly agree | 50 (22.0) | 35 (19.3) | 10 (37.0) | 5 (26.3) | |
| PCP skilled at diagnosing and treating symptoms associated with cancer or cancer therapy | 0.028 | ||||
| Strongly disagree | 6 (2.7) | 3 (1.7) | 2 (7.4) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Disagree | 6 (2.7) | 4 (2.2) | 2 (7.4) | 0 | |
| Not sure | 127 (56.2) | 109 (60.6) | 11 (40.7) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Agree | 59 (26.1) | 47 (26.1) | 5 (18.5) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Strongly agree | 28 (12.4) | 17 (9.4) | 7 (25.9) | 4 (21.1) |
*
Scale of 1 to 5, where 0 is “not at all important” and 5 is “very important”