Survivorship Care Plans to inform the primary care physician: results from the ROGY care pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

Nicole P. M. Ezendam*, Kim A. H. Nicolaije, Roy F. P. M. Kruitwagen, Johanna M. A. Pijnenborg, M. Caroline Vos, Dorry Boll, Marjo van Bommel, Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

35 Citations (Web of Science)


This study assesses the effect of sending a Survivorship Care Plan (SCP) to primary care physicians (PCP) on the communication of the PCP with the medical specialist and the patient and to describe PCPs' opinions regarding the SCP. In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in 12 hospitals, the PCP of endometrial and ovarian cancer patients received usual information, while in addition the SCP-care arm received a copy of the patient's SCP. A questionnaire was returned by 266 PCPs (76 %). One third of the PCPs in the SCP-care arm indicated having received an SCP. PCPs in the SCP-care arm were more likely to have had personal contact with the medical specialist (52 vs. 37 %, p = 0.01) but were equally satisfied with the information as PCPs in the usual care arm (7.2 vs. 6.9 on a scale from 1 to 10, p = 0.25). Of all PCPs, 82 % indicated they would want to receive an SCP in the future. A quarter of the PCPs who received an SCP reported that the SCP supported contact with the patient. However, the SCP was found too long. Supplying an SCP to PCPs potentially has a positive effect on the communication between the PCP and the medical specialist. The SCP should be concise and focused on PCPs' needs, such as contact information and tailored information on patient diagnosis, treatment, and possible consequences. In the light of transition of cancer care to PCPs, survivors may benefit from improved information provision and communication.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)595-602
JournalJournal of Cancer Survivorship-Research and Practice
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2014


  • Gynecological cancer
  • Information provision
  • Health care organization
  • Communication
  • Primary care

Cite this