Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31859683›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2019

Evaluation of a Technology-Based Survivor Care Plan for Breast Cancer Survivors: Pre-Post Pilot Study.

Talya Laufer, Bryan Lerner, Anett Petrich, Anna M Quinn, Leah Ernst, Alicin Roop, Janet Knoblauch, Nick C Leasure, Rebecca J Jaslow, Sarah Hegarty and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Talya LauferDivision of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9255-0813
Bryan LernerDivision of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Anett PetrichDivision of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6613-6662
Anna M QuinnDivision of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8641-4065
Leah ErnstMcGlinn Cancer Institute, Reading Health System, West Reading, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9404-3455
Alicin RoopMcGlinn Cancer Institute, Reading Health System, West Reading, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5426-6064
Janet KnoblauchMcGlinn Cancer Institute, Reading Health System, West Reading, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6229-4428
Nick C LeasureMcGlinn Cancer Institute, Reading Health System, West Reading, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2085-1892
Rebecca J JaslowDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6298-491X
Sarah HegartyDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5348-350X
Amy LeaderDivision of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9514-3631
Andrea BarsevickDivision of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1829-6826

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs of 2016, almost 16 million individuals were cancer survivors, including over 3.5 million survivors of breast cancer. Because cancer survivors are living longer and have unique health care needs, the Institute of Medicine proposed a survivor care plan as a way to alleviate the many medical, emotional, and care coordination problems of survivors.

objectiveThis pilot study for breast cancer survivors was undertaken to: (1) examine self-reported changes in knowledge, confidence, and activation from before receipt to after receipt of a survivor care plan; and (2) describe survivor preferences for, and satisfaction with, a technology-based survivor care plan.

methodsA single group pretest-posttest design was used to study breast cancer survivors in an academic cancer center and a community cancer center during their medical visit after they completed chemotherapy. The intervention was a technology-based survivor care plan. Measures were taken before, immediately after, and 1 month after receipt of the survivor care plan.

resultsA total of 38 breast cancer survivors agreed to participate in the study. Compared to baseline levels before receipt of the survivor care plan, participants reported increased knowledge both immediately after its receipt at the academic center (P<.001) and the community center (P<.001) as well as one month later at the academic center (P=.002) and the community center (P<.001). Participants also reported increased confidence immediately following receipt of the survivor care plan at the academic center (P=.63) and the community center (P=.003) and one month later at both the academic center (P=.63) and the community center (P<.001). Activation was increased from baseline to post-survivor care plan at both the academic center (P=.05) and community center (P<.001) as well as from baseline to 1-month follow-up at the academic center (P=.56) and the community center (P<.001). Overall, community center participants had lower knowledge, confidence, and activation at baseline compared with academic center participants. Overall, 22/38 (58%) participants chose the fully functional electronic survivor care plan. However, 12/23 (52%) in the community center group chose the paper version compared to 4/15 (27%) in the academic center group. Satisfaction with the format (38/38 participants) and the content (37/38 participants) of the survivor care plan was high for both groups.

conclusionsThis study provides evidence that knowledge, confidence, and activation of survivors were associated with implementation of the survivor care plan. This research agrees with previous research showing that cancer survivors found the technology-based survivor care plan to be acceptable. More research is needed to determine the optimal approach to survivor care planning to ensure that all cancer survivors can benefit from it.

Indexed as

cancer survivorcare planpatient activationtechnology

Identifiers

PMID31859683
PMCPMC6942181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.