Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006‐2013)

Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006‐2013) In 2006, the Institute of Medicine recommended that cancer survivors who are completing primary treatment receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) based on face validity. The state of scientific knowledge regarding the SCP is unclear. The authors conducted an integrative review of existing evidence regarding SCPs. The MEDLINE/PubMed database, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database were searched for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2013 using a combination of keywords: “survivors,” “survivorship,” “care plans,” “care planning,” “treatment summaries,” and “cancer.” Articles were included if they 1) reported results from an empirical study, 2) included cancer survivors who were diagnosed at age ≥18 years, 3) related to SCP, and 4) were published in English. In total, 781 records were retrieved; 77 were identified as duplicates, and 665 were abstracts or presentations that did not relate to SCPs for adults or were not empirical, which left 42 articles for inclusion in this review. Studies regarding SCP fell into 3 categories: 1) content (n=14), 2) dissemination and implementation (n=14), and 3) survivor and provider outcomes (n=14). SCPs have been endorsed and are associated with improved knowledge, but SCP use remains sporadic. Only 4 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that avoided many biases associated with observational studies. Other limitations included cross‐sectional or pre‐SCP–post‐SCP (“pre‐post”) designs, limited generalizability caused by a lack of sample diversity, and a lack of systematic testing of data‐collection tools. The quantity and quality of SCP research are limited. SCPs have been endorsed, but evidence of improved outcomes associated with SCP is limited. Future research that addresses the methodological concerns of extant studies is needed regarding SCP use, content, and outcomes. Cancer 2015;121:978–996. © 2014 American Cancer Society. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Cancer Wiley

Summing it up: An integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006‐2013)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/summing-it-up-an-integrative-review-of-studies-of-cancer-survivorship-7ZGDEUL9pW

References (80)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
"© 2015 American Cancer Society"
ISSN
0008-543X
eISSN
1097-0142
DOI
10.1002/cncr.28884
pmid
25252164
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine recommended that cancer survivors who are completing primary treatment receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) based on face validity. The state of scientific knowledge regarding the SCP is unclear. The authors conducted an integrative review of existing evidence regarding SCPs. The MEDLINE/PubMed database, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database were searched for relevant studies published between 2006 and 2013 using a combination of keywords: “survivors,” “survivorship,” “care plans,” “care planning,” “treatment summaries,” and “cancer.” Articles were included if they 1) reported results from an empirical study, 2) included cancer survivors who were diagnosed at age ≥18 years, 3) related to SCP, and 4) were published in English. In total, 781 records were retrieved; 77 were identified as duplicates, and 665 were abstracts or presentations that did not relate to SCPs for adults or were not empirical, which left 42 articles for inclusion in this review. Studies regarding SCP fell into 3 categories: 1) content (n=14), 2) dissemination and implementation (n=14), and 3) survivor and provider outcomes (n=14). SCPs have been endorsed and are associated with improved knowledge, but SCP use remains sporadic. Only 4 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that avoided many biases associated with observational studies. Other limitations included cross‐sectional or pre‐SCP–post‐SCP (“pre‐post”) designs, limited generalizability caused by a lack of sample diversity, and a lack of systematic testing of data‐collection tools. The quantity and quality of SCP research are limited. SCPs have been endorsed, but evidence of improved outcomes associated with SCP is limited. Future research that addresses the methodological concerns of extant studies is needed regarding SCP use, content, and outcomes. Cancer 2015;121:978–996. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Journal

CancerWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2015

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ;

There are no references for this article.