ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2019
A comparison of two models of follow-up care for adult survivors of childhood cancer.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Childhood cancer models of survivorship care: a scoping review of elements of care and reported outcomes.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Design and methods of a multi-level intervention to improve adherence to childhood cancer survivorship care by partnering with primary care providers: The BRIDGES randomized controlled trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Alberta Childhood Cancer Survivorship Research Program.Cancers · 2023Article
- Psychiatric Disorder Incidence Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 15-39 With Cancer: Population-Based Cohort.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
- Development and Validation of Models to Predict Poor Health-Related Quality of Life Among Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Interventions to address disparities and barriers to pediatric cancer survivorship care: a scoping review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2022Article
- Adherence to cardiomyopathy screening guidelines among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors exposed to chest radiation and/or anthracyclines.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFew studies have compared follow-up-care models for adult survivors of childhood cancer (ASCCs), though choice of model could impact medical test adherence, and health-related quality of life (QOL). This study compared two follow-up-care models, cancer-center-based versus community-based, for ASCCs in Alberta, Canada, to determine which model would demonstrate greater ASCC adherence to guideline-recommended medical screening tests for late effects, QOL, physical symptoms, and adherence to yearly follow-up.
methodsASCC discharged to a community model (over 15 years) and those with comparable birth years (1973-1993) currently followed in a cancer center model were recruited via direct contact or multimedia campaign. Chart review identified chemotherapeutic and radiation exposures, and required medical late effect screening tests. ASCCs also completed questionnaires assessing QOL, physical symptoms, and follow-up behavior.
resultsOne hundred fifty-six survivors participated (community (n = 86); cancer center (n = 70)). Primary analysis indicated that cancer center ASCCs guideline-recommended total test adherence percentage (Mdn = 85.4%) was significantly higher than the community model (Mdn = 29.2%, U = 3996.50, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in QOL for cancer center ASCCs (M = 83.85, SD = 20.55 versus M = 77.50, SD = 23.94; t (154) = 1.77, p = 0.078) compared to community-based ASCCs. Cancer center-based ASCCs endorsed from 0.4-7.1% fewer physical symptom clusters, and higher adherence to follow-up behavior in comparisons using effect sizes without p values.
conclusionThis study highlights the cancer center model's superiority for adherence to exposure-based medical late effect screening guidelines, cancer-specific follow-up behaviors, and the reporting of fewer physical complaints in ASCCs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: ASCCs followed in a cancer center model likely benefit from earlier late-effects detection and opportunities for early intervention.
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.