Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34786652›Full record

ReviewJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2023

Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews.

Raymond J Chan, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Megan Crichton, Ria Joseph, Nicolas H Hart, Kristi Milley, Paige Druce, Jianrong Zhang, Michael Jefford, Karolina Lisy and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

114 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. 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
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Baseline characteristics of survivors, primary care clinicians, and oncologists in a randomized trial of a shared care, self-management intervention for cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. The Impact of Video-Based and ECHO™ Survivorship Training on Primary Care Providers' Self-Efficacy and Communication.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Disparities in healthcare utilization and access by measures of economic stability among female cancer survivors in Maryland.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

54 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

12 authors.

Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South, Australia. raymond.chan@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0248-7046
Fiona Crawford-WilliamsCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South, Australia.
Megan CrichtonCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ria JosephCancer and Palliative Care Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Nicolas H HartCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South, Australia.
Kristi MilleyPrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Paige DrucePrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Jianrong ZhangCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michael JeffordDepartment of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Karolina LisyDepartment of Oncology, Sir Peter MacCallum, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Jon EmeryPrimary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4), Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Larissa NekhlyudovDepartment of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1194051National Health and Medical Research Council APP1195302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews.

methodsMEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized.

resultsTwelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services.

conclusionsDespite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsNeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareHumansQuality of LifeSurvivorshipSystematic Reviews as TopicCancer survivorshipModels of careNurse-led carePost-treatment follow-upPrimary care ledShared careSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34786652
PMCPMC8594645

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.