Browsing by Author "Alfano, Catherine M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Systematic Review of Functional Outcomes in Cancer Rehabilitation Research
    (Elsevier, 2022) Sleight, Alix G.; Gerber, Lynn H.; Marshall, Timothy F.; Livinski, Alicia; Alfano, Catherine M.; Harrington, Shana; Flores, Ann Marie; Virani, Aneesha; Hu, Xiaorong; Mitchell, Sandra A.; Varedi, Mitra; Eden, Melissa; Hayek, Samah; Reigle, Beverly; Kerkman, Anya; Neves, Raquel; Jablonoski, Kathleen; Hacker, Eileen; Sun, Virginia; Newman, Robin; McDonnell, Karen Kane; L’Hotta, Allison; Schoenhals, Alana; Stout, Nicole L.; School of Nursing
    Objective: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions targeting optimal physical or cognitive function in adults with a history of cancer and describe the breadth of evidence as well as strengths and limitations across a range of functional domains. Data sources: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The time scope was January 2008 to April 2019. Study selection: Prospective, controlled trials including single- and multiarm cohorts investigating rehabilitative interventions for cancer survivors at any point in the continuum of care were included, if studies included a primary functional outcome measure. Secondary data analyses and pilot/feasibility studies were excluded. Full-text review identified 362 studies for inclusion. Data extraction: Extraction was performed by coauthor teams and quality and bias assessed using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence Scheme (class I-IV). Data synthesis: Studies for which the functional primary endpoint achieved significance were categorized into 9 functional areas foundational to cancer rehabilitation: (1) quality of life (109 studies), (2) activities of daily living (61 studies), (3) fatigue (59 studies), (4) functional mobility (55 studies), (5) exercise behavior (37 studies), (6) cognition (20 studies), (7) communication (10 studies), (8) sexual function (6 studies), and (9) return to work (5 studies). Most studies were categorized as class III in quality/bias. Averaging results found within each of the functional domains, 71% of studies reported statistically significant results after cancer rehabilitation intervention(s) for at least 1 functional outcome. Conclusions: These findings provide evidence supporting the efficacy of rehabilitative interventions for individuals with a cancer history. The findings should be balanced with the understanding that many studies had moderate risk of bias and/or limitations in study quality by AAN criteria. These results may provide a foundation for future work to establish clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitative interventions across cancer disease types.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Use of Survivorship Care Plans in the United States: Associations With Survivorship Care
    (Oxford Journals, 2013-10-16) Forsythe, Laura P.; Parry, Carla; Alfano, Catherine M.; Kent, Erin E.; Leach, Corinne R.; Haggstrom, David A.; Ganz, Patricia A.; Aziz, Noreen; Rowland, Julia H.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    Background Survivorship care plans (SCPs), including a treatment summary and follow-up plan, intend to promote coordination of posttreatment cancer care; yet, little is known about the provision of these documents by oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study compared self-reported oncologist provision and PCP receipt of treatment summaries and follow-up plans, characterized oncologists who reported consistent provision of these documents to PCPs, and examined associations between PCP receipt of these documents and survivorship care. Methods A nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (n = 1130) and PCPs (n = 1020) were surveyed regarding follow-up care for breast and colon cancer survivors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with oncologist provision of treatment summaries and SCPs to PCPs (always/almost always vs less frequent). Results Nearly half of oncologists reported always/almost always providing treatment summaries, whereas 20.2% reported always/almost always providing SCPs (treatment summary + follow-up plan). Approximately one-third of PCPs indicated always/almost always receiving treatment summaries; 13.4% reported always/almost always receiving SCPs. Oncologists who reported training in late- and long-term effects of cancer and use of electronic medical records were more likely to report SCP provision (P < .05). PCP receipt of SCPs was associated with better PCP-reported care coordination, physician–physician communication, and confidence in survivorship care knowledge compared to receipt of neither treatment summaries nor SCPs (P < .05). Conclusions Providing SCPs to PCPs may enhance survivorship care coordination, physician–physician communication, and PCP confidence. However, considerable progress will be necessary to achieve implementation of sharing SCPs among oncologists and PCPs.