Oncology practitioners’ perspectives and practice patterns of post-treatment cancer survivorship care in the Asia-Pacific region: results from the STEP study

Abstract

BackgroundMost efforts to advance cancer survivorship care have occurred in Western countries. There has been limited research towards gaining a comprehensive understanding of survivorship care provision in the Asia-Pacific region. This study aimed to establish the perceptions of responsibility, confidence, and frequency of survivorship care practices of oncology practitioners and examine their perspectives on factors that impede quality survivorship care.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of hospital-based oncology practitioners in 10 Asia-Pacific countries was undertaken between May 2015–October 2016. The participating countries included Australia, Hong Kong, China, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, India, Myanmar, and The Philippines. The survey was administered using paper-based or online questionnaires via specialist cancer care settings, educational meetings, and professional organisations.ResultsIn total, 1501 oncology practitioners participated in the study. When comparing the subscales of responsibility perception, frequency and confidence, Australian practitioners had significantly higher ratings than practitioners in Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, and Singapore (all p < 0.05). Surprisingly, practitioners working in Low- and Mid- Income Countries (LMICs) had higher levels of responsibility perception, confidence and frequencies of delivering survivorship care than those working in High-Income Countries (HICs) (p < 0.001), except for the responsibility perception of care coordination where no difference in scores was observed (p = 0.83). Physicians were more confident in delivering most of the survivorship care interventions compared to nurses and allied-health professionals. Perceived barriers to survivorship care were similar across the HICs and LMICs, with the most highly rated items for all practitioners being lack of time, dedicated educational resources for patients and family members, and evidence-based practice guidelines informing survivorship care.ConclusionsDifferent survivorship practices have been observed between HICs and LMICs, Australia and other countries and between the professional disciplines. Future service planning and research efforts should take these findings into account and overcome barriers identified in this study.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3733-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Healthcare providers’ perspectives on care coordination for adults with cancer and multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review

“…Most studies reported in the 22 articles had a cross‐sectional quantitative (13) or qualitative (6) design, while two used mixed methods (surveys and interviews), and one was longitudinal (surveys and interviews) . Most (19) included physician perspectives as a main outcome measure, although three included physician perspectives as an adjunct to patient perspectives. Some articles were excluded because they focused on nonphysician providers such as nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and allied healthcare providers.…”

“…Two studies in this review focused on patients with lung cancer, two focused on breast cancer, and the remaining 18 focused on multiple or unspecified types of cancer . Also, studies focused on different phases of cancer care, including those who had completed cancer treatment, were undergoing active cancer treatment or were in varying or unspecified phases of cancer care.…”

“…Table describes the risk of bias in individual studies. MMAT quality scores ranged from 2 to 5, with four studies assigned a score of 2 or 3 (moderate risk of bias) and 18 studies assigned a score of 4 or 5 (low risk of bias). Quality scores are based on information presented in an article, how well this information matched quality criteria described in the MMAT and evaluators’ judgement; thus, scores may have a subjective component and may not reflect the actual quality of the study in question.…”

Listening to the voice of patients with head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta‐synthesis

“…Considering that resources are limited in many healthcare systems, we believe it is essential to develop a multidisciplinary, structured approach in treating HNC patients to ensure a comprehensive understanding of their needs. Because health professionals differ in their roles, in the frequency of care after treatment, and employ different care provision standards (Chan et al, 2017), improving communication and coordination between professionals, especially primary care physicians and oncologists (Klabunde et al, 2013), will help ensure optimal follow-up care.…”

Optimizing Survivorship Care Services for Asian Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors: A Qualitative Study

“…[18][19][20] However, the current provision of survivorship care services remained inconsistent and unorganized in the Asia-Pacific region, including high-resource countries like Singapore where services are segregated by cancer types without age specificity. [21][22][23][24][25] As AYA cancer survivors experience a higher psychosocial distress and morbidity burden compared with their cancer-free peers, this segregation would result in services that do not comprehensively and adequately address the unique age-related challenges AYA face. 26 Thus, a change is needed for better management of AYA survivors' needs to improve their quality of life.…”