PurposeCancer survivors are increasingly expected to manage the consequences of cancer and its treatment for themselves. There is evidence that self-efficacy is important for successful self-management and that this can be enhanced with support. The purpose of this study was to assess self-efficacy to manage problems in the year following primary treatment.MethodsThis cross-sectional online survey included cancer survivors who had completed their treatment within the past 12 months. Self-efficacy was assessed and variables expected to be associated with self-efficacy were measured using validated scales including quality of life, well-being, illness perceptions, depression and social support.ResultsOne hundred eighty-two respondents (mean age 50; 81 % female) completed the survey. They had been treated for a range of cancers; most commonly breast (45 %). Self-efficacy scores varied between individuals and according to the illness-related task to be managed. Respondents were least confident in managing fatigue and most confident in accessing information about their cancer. Individuals most likely to report low self-efficacy were women, those experiencing higher levels of pain and/or depression, lower well-being scores, lower socio-economic status, low levels of social support, or a more negative perception of cancer.ConclusionsSelf-efficacy to self-manage problems faced as a consequence of cancer and its treatment can vary widely in the year following treatment. Fatigue may be particularly difficult to manage.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsVariations in self-efficacy highlight the importance of assessing specific problems faced and people’s confidence to manage them in order to tailor appropriate self-management support.

Adolescent survivors engage in risky health behaviors at rates generally equivalent to their siblings. Aggressive health education efforts should be directed toward this high-risk population.

Background Alternative models of cancer follow-up care are needed to ameliorate pressure on services and better meet survivors’ long-term needs. This paper reports an evaluation of a service improvement initiative for the follow-up care of prostate cancer patients based on remote monitoring and supported self-management. Methods This multi-centred, historically controlled study compared patient reported outcomes of men experiencing the new Programme with men experiencing a traditional clinic appointment model of follow-up care, who were recruited in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the Programme. Data were collected by self-completed questionnaires, with follow up measurement at four and eight months post-baseline. The primary outcome was men’s unmet survivorship needs, measured by the Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs Survey. Secondary outcomes included cancer specific quality of life, psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with care. The analysis was intention to treat. Regression analyses were conducted for outcomes at each time point separately, controlling for pre-defined clinical and demographic variables. All outcome analyses are presented in the paper. Costs were compared between the two groups. Results Six hundred and twenty-seven men (61%) were consented to take part in the study (293 in the Programme and 334 in the comparator group.) Regarding the primary measure of unmet survivorship needs, 25 of 26 comparisons favoured the Programme, of which 4 were statistically significant. For the secondary measures of activation for self-management, quality of life, psychological well-being and lifestyle, 20 of 32 comparisons favoured the Programme and 3 were statistically significant. There were 22 items on the satisfaction with care questionnaire and 13 were statistically significant. Per participant costs (British pounds, 2015) in the 8 month follow up period were slightly lower in the programme than in the comparator group (£289 versus £327). The Programme was acceptable to patients. Conclusion The Programme is shown to be broadly comparable to traditional follow-up care in all respects, adding to evidence of the viability of such models. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5561-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

One of the stated aims of introducing computerised decision support systems to assist nursing practice is to reduce variation and/or the number of errors associated with clinical practice. The study found unanticipated uses in such systems such as the routine over-riding of recommendations which could lead to an increase rather than a decrease in variation or errors.

Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.