Background. The 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. Methods. We 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.Results. Eight 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 selfreported cancer and survivorship knowledge, physical functioning, satisfaction with information provision, or selfefficacy 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. Conclusion. SCPs 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. The Oncologist 2020;25:e351-e372 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.

Poor body image may be one driver of distress for adolescent and young adults (AYAs) after cancer. We explored physical appearance changes reported by AYA cancer survivors to understand impacts on body image, distress, lifestyle and health behaviours. We recruited AYAs (15–25 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Using semi‐structured interviews, we asked participants about appearance changes resulting from their cancer. We used iterative thematic analyses to explain experiences. Forty‐three participants (51% male, mean age = 21 years) completed an interview. Two key themes emerged. Participants discussed physical appearance changes and psychosocial impacts including appraisal of their changed appearance. Thirty‐eight participants (n = 38/43) reported that their cancer and/or treatment changed their appearance (most commonly: alopecia [n = 15/43], scarring [n = 14/43] and weight gain [n = 11/43]). Ten participants (n = 10/43) acknowledged body dissatisfaction. Other impacts included feeling a loss of identity, not being recognised by peers and feeling helpless to change. Our results have translational significance for AYA care. Body image concerns should be considered a potential barrier to successful reintegration post‐treatment. AYAs may benefit from familial and peer support, healthy lifestyle interventions and clinical environments catering to appearance‐related sensitivities.

Background: Survivors of childhood cancer often experience treatment-related chronic health conditions. Survivorship care improves survivors’ physical and mental health, yet many are disengaged from care. Innovative models of care are necessary to overcome patient-reported barriers to accessing survivorship care and to maximize survivors’ health. Methods: We piloted a novel survivorship program, called “Re-engage,” a distance-delivered, nurse-led intervention aiming to engage, educate, and empower survivors not receiving any cancer-related care. Re-engage involves a nurse-led consultation delivered via telephone/online to establish survivors’ medical history and needs. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 6-month follow-up. Results: A total of 27 survivors who had not accessed survivorship care in the last 2 years participated (median age, 31 years; interquartile range [IQR], 27–39 years); of which, 82% were at high-risk for treatment-related complications. Participation in Re-engage was high (75%) and there was no attrition once survivors enrolled. At 1 month postintervention, 92% of survivors reported that Re-engage was “beneficial,” which all survivors reported at 6-month follow-up. Survivors’ overall satisfaction with their care increased from 52% before Re-engage to 84% at 1 month postintervention. Survivors’ mean self-efficacy scores remained similar from baseline to 1 month postintervention (b = −0.33, 95% CI, −1.31 to 0.65), but increased significantly from baseline to 6-month follow-up (b = 1.64, 95% CI, 0.28–3.00). At 6-month follow-up, 73% of survivors showed an increase in health-related self-efficacy compared with baseline. Conclusions: Re-engage is a highly acceptable and feasible intervention and promotes health-related self-efficacy, which is integral to survivors being advocates for their own health. Further empirical work is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of Re-engage.Trial registration: ACTRN12618000194268