ABSTRACT
The number of survivors of cancer is increasing substantially. Current models of care are unsustainable and fail to address the many unmet needs of survivors of cancer. Numerous trials have investigated alternate models of care, including models led by primary-care providers, care shared between oncology specialists and primary-care providers, and care led by oncology nurses. These alternate models appear to be at least as effective as specialist-led care and are applicable to many survivors of cancer. Choosing the most appropriate care model for each patient depends on patient-level factors (such as risk of longer-term effects, late effects, individual desire, and capacity to self-manage), local services, and health-care policy. Wider implementation of alternative models requires appropriate support for non-oncologist care providers and endorsement of these models by cancer teams with their patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven some changes in practice that are more patient-centred and should continue. Improved models should shift from a predominant focus on detection of cancer recurrence and seek to improve the quality of life, functional outcomes, experience, and survival of survivors of cancer, reduce the risk of recurrence and new cancers, improve the management of comorbidities, and reduce costs to patients and payers. This Series paper focuses primarily on high-income countries, where most data have been derived. However, future research should consider the applicability of these models in a wider range of health-care settings and for a wider range of cancers.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine services have been increasingly used to facilitate post-treatment cancer survivorship care, including improving access; monitoring health status, health behaviors, and symptom management; enhancing information exchange; and mitigating the costs of care delivery, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. To inform guidance for the use of telemedicine in the post-COVID era, the aim of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) was to evaluate the efficacy of, and survivor engagement in, telemedicine interventions in the post-treatment survivorship phase, and to consider implementation barriers and facilitators. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched. SRs that examined the use of telemedicine in the post-treatment phase of cancer survivorship, published between January 2010 and April 2021, were included. Efficacy data were synthesized narratively. Implementation barriers and facilitators were synthesized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Twenty-nine SRs were included. A substantive body of evidence found telemedicine to benefit the management of psychosocial and physical effects, particularly for improving fatigue and cognitive function. There was a lack of evidence on the use of telemedicine in the prevention and surveillance for recurrences and new cancers as well as management of chronic medical conditions. This overview highlights a range of diverse barriers and facilitators at the patient, health service, and system levels. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the benefits of telemedicine in addressing psychosocial and physical effects, but not in other areas of post-treatment cancer survivorship care. This large review provides practical guidance for use of telemedicine in post-treatment survivorship care.