ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2018
Survivorship care plans: are randomized controlled trials assessing outcomes that are relevant to stakeholders?
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Use and impact of breast cancer survivorship care plans: a systematic review.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Pooled it
- Survivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes.The oncologist · 2020Pooled it
- A Tailored Electronic Survivorship Care Plan for Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.The Journal of urology · 2025Trial
- A pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate a survivorship care planning intervention for head and neck cancer survivor-caregiver dyads.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- From information to action: how medical reports can support general practitioners in long-term cancer care-a qualitative exploratory study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- (Not) Lost in Transition-Enhancing Patient-Reported Care Coordination by Bridging Oncology and Primary Care for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Survivors.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Article
- What Do Older Adults with Frailty and Their Caregivers Want from Advance Care Planning Discussions? A Descriptive Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on disease-based long-term follow-up care plans for childhood cancer survivors.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2025Review
- Co-designing Healthy Living after Cancer Online: an online nutrition, physical activity, and psychosocial intervention for post-treatment cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024Article
- Article
- Pilot study of implementing the Shared Healthcare Actions & Reflections Electronic systems in Survivorship (SHARE-S) program in coordination with clinical care.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Still Lost in Transition? Perspectives of Ongoing Cancer Survivorship Care Needs from Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs, Survivors, and Health Care Providers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- What Matters in Cancer Survivorship Research? A Suite of Stakeholder-Relevant Outcomes.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- Article
- Standardized versus personalized survivorship care plans for breast cancer survivors: A program evaluation.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2021Article
- Healthy Behaviors: Prevalence of Uptake Among Cancer Survivors.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2020Review
- A cross-sectional population-based survey looking at the impact of cancer survivorship care plans on meeting the needs of cancer survivors in the posttreatment stage.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare outcomes assessed in extant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to outcomes that stakeholders expect from survivorship care plans (SCPs). To facilitate the transition from active treatment to follow-up care for the 15.5 million US cancer survivors, many organizations require SCP use. However, results of several RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have been null, possibly because they have evaluated outcomes on which SCPs should be expected to have limited influence. Stakeholders (e.g., survivors, oncologists) may expect outcomes that differ from RCTs' outcomes.
methodsWe identified RCTs' outcomes using a PubMed literature review. We identified outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs using semistructured interviews with stakeholders in three healthcare systems in the USA and Canada. Finally, we mapped RCTs' outcomes onto stakeholder-identified outcomes.
resultsRCT outcomes did not fully address outcomes that stakeholders expected from SCPs, and RCTs assessed outcomes that stakeholders did not expect from SCPs. RCTs often assessed outcomes only from survivors' perspectives.
conclusionsRCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have not assessed outcomes that stakeholders expect. To better understand SCPs' effectiveness, future RCTs should assess outcomes of SCP use that are relevant from the perspective of multiple stakeholders. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: SCPs' effectiveness may be optimized when used with an eye toward outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs. For survivors, this means using SCPs as a map to guide them with respect to what kind of follow-up care they should seek, when they should seek it, and from whom they should seek it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.