Understanding Posttreatment Patient‐Provider Communication and Follow‐Up Care Among Self‐Identified Rural Cancer Survivors in Illinois

Abstract

Purpose As disparities in rural‐urban cancer survivorship rates continue to widen, optimizing patient‐provider communication regarding timely follow‐up care is a potential mechanism to improving survivorship‐related outcomes. The current study examines sociodemographic and health predictors of posttreatment patient‐provider communication and follow‐up care and associations between written communication and timely follow‐up care for cancer survivors who identify as rural. Methods Data were analyzed from posttreatment cancer survivor respondents of the Illinois Rural Cancer Assessment Study. The current study tested associations between sociodemographic variables and health factors on the quality of patient‐provider communication and timely posttreatment follow‐up care, defined as visits ≤ 3 months posttreatment, and associations between the receipt of written patient‐provider communication on timely posttreatment follow‐up care. Results Among 90 self‐identified rural cancer survivors, respondents with annual incomes < $50,000 and ≤ High School diploma were more likely to report a high quality of posttreatment patient‐provider communication. Posttreatment written communication was reported by 62% of the respondents and 52% reported timely follow‐up visits during the first 3 years of posttreatment care. Patients who reported receiving written patient‐provider communication were more likely to have timely posttreatment follow‐up care after completing active treatment than patients who had not received written patient‐provider communication. Conclusions Our findings suggest that written patient‐provider communication improved timely follow‐up care for self‐identified rural cancer survivors. This research supports policy and practice that recommend the receipt of written survivorship care plans. Implementation of written survivorship care recommendations has the potential to improve survivorship care for rural cancer survivors.

“Just give it to us straight!”: a qualitative analysis of midwestern rural lung cancer survivors and caregivers about survivorship care experiences

“…There is increasing research and practice-level attention on survivorship care communication, partly due to the mixed ndings on the utility of survivorship care plans and their association with improved survivorship outcomes. [24,41,42] Lewis-Thames et al, [43] investigated patient-provider survivorship care communication with rural active and posttreatment survivors. Therein, less than half of the survivors received "in detail" communication about late or long-term side effects of cancer treatment (32%) and emotional or social needs related to cancer and lifestyle or health recommendations such as diet (47%).…”

A scoping review of the evidence on survivorship care plans among minority, rural, and low-income populations

“…In a survey study of rural cancer survivors, Lewis-Thames and colleagues found that rural survivors receiving written post-treatment survivorship communication had greater odds of reporting timely follow-up care [33]. In an evaluation of a structured care plan called Care Sequence in five safety-net institutions and five non-safety-net institutions, the SCP was perceived as useful [26].…”

The interplay of financial toxicity, health care team communication, and psychosocial well‐being among rural cancer patients and survivors

“…Reduced care access contributes to disparities in outcomes, as rural cancer centers often have fewer resources, personnel, specialists, and treatment options available 5,26–28 . Thus, considering the unique challenges facing care providers and patients in rural settings, and as a contributor to the contextual rural patient experience, patient‐provider communication may be a mechanism to improve outcomes and well‐being of patients 29,30 …”

“…5,[26][27][28] Thus, considering the unique challenges facing care providers and patients in rural settings, and as a contributor to the contextual rural patient experience, patient-provider communication may be a mechanism to improve outcomes and well-being of patients. 29,30 Given both the documented linkages between financial toxicity and psychosocial outcomes and the need to better understand the rural cancer patient experience, the current study examined the relationship between financial toxicity, health care team communication, and psychosocial well-being among rural cancer patients and survivors. Our first aim was to document associations between financial toxicity and psychosocial well-being among rural adults with cancer.…”