Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32043786›Full record

SynthesisThe oncologist2020

Survivorship Care Plans in Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Care Plan Outcomes.

Rebecca E Hill, Claire E Wakefield, Richard J Cohn, Joanna E Fardell, Mary-Ellen E Brierley, Emily Kothe, Paul B Jacobsen, Kate Hetherington, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

117 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Synthesis of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for breast cancer survivorship care: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Health information technology to support cancer survivorship care planning: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Effectiveness of the socioecological informed contextual treatment summary and care plan (TSSCP-P, Brazil) for breast cancer survivors: a randomized, controlled study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Feasibility of delivering survivorship care via lay health educators: A pilot randomized controlled trial among rural cancer survivors.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2023
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Who Enrolls in an Online Cancer Survivorship Program? Reach of the INSPIRE Randomized Controlled Trial for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Survivors.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2020
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca E HillSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
Claire E WakefieldSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
Richard J CohnSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
Joanna E FardellSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
Mary-Ellen E BrierleySchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
Emily KotheSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Paul B JacobsenNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Kate HetheringtonSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
Rebecca Mercieca-BebberSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, Randwick, Australia.
Sydney Children's Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AUDeakin University · AUNational Cancer Institute · USNational Health and Medical Research Council · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Institute of Medicine recommends that survivorship care plans (SCPs) be included in cancer survivorship care. Our meta-analysis compares patient-reported outcomes between SCP and no SCP (control) conditions for cancer survivors. Our systematic review examines the feasibility of implementing SCPs from survivors' and health care professionals' perspectives and the impact of SCPs on health care professionals' knowledge and survivorship care provision.

methodsWe searched seven online databases (inception to April 22, 2018) for articles assessing SCP feasibility and health care professional outcomes. Randomized controlled trials comparing patient-reported outcomes for SCP recipients versus controls were eligible for the meta-analysis. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using pooled standardized mean differences for each patient-reported outcome.

resultsEight articles were eligible for the meta-analysis (n = 1,286 survivors) and 50 for the systematic review (n = 18,949 survivors; n = 3,739 health care professionals). There were no significant differences between SCP recipients and controls at 6 months postintervention on self-reported cancer and survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, satisfaction with information provision, or self-efficacy or at 12 months on anxiety, cancer-specific distress, depression, or satisfaction with follow-up care. SCPs appear to be acceptable and potentially improve survivors' adherence to medical recommendations and health care professionals' knowledge of survivorship care and late effects.

conclusionSCPs appear feasible but do not improve survivors' patient-reported outcomes. Research should ascertain whether this is due to SCP ineffectiveness, implementation issues, or inappropriate research design of comparative effectiveness studies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Several organizations recommend that cancer survivors receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) after their cancer treatment; however, the impact of SCPs on cancer survivors and health care professionals is unclear. This systematic review suggests that although SCPs appear to be feasible and may improve health care professionals' knowledge of late effects and survivorship care, there is no evidence that SCPs affect cancer survivors' patient-reported outcomes. In order to justify the ongoing implementation of SCPs, additional research should evaluate SCP implementation and the research design of comparative effectiveness studies. Discussion may also be needed regarding the possibility that SCPs are fundamentally ineffective.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsHumansPatient Care PlanningSurvivorsSurvivorshipCancerDisseminationImplementationMeta-analysisOutcomesSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID32043786
PMCPMC7011634
OpenAlexW2981471534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.