You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Oncology
Protocol
Integrating primary care and childhood cancer survivorship care: a scoping review protocol
  1. Sarah E Piombo1,
  2. Julia Stal1,
  3. Dalia Kagramanov1,
  4. Lynn Kysh2,
  5. David R Freyer1,3,4,5,
  6. Barbara J Turner6,7,
  7. Kimberly A Miller1,8
  1. 1Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
  2. 2Institute for Nursing and Interprofessional Research, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  3. 3Cancer and Blood Disease Institute, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  4. 4Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
  5. 5USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
  6. 6Department of Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
  7. 7Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Research and Innovation, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
  8. 8Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Julia Stal; jstal{at}usc.edu

Abstract

Introduction Improved treatment regimens have led to increased survival rates among childhood cancer survivors (CCS), and more than 84% of all children diagnosed with cancer will experience long-term survival or cure. Survivors are susceptible to late effects of cancer treatment often requiring lifelong follow-up care, as many of these conditions can be prevented or mitigated with surveillance. Integrating primary care (PC) and childhood cancer survivorship care can improve follow-up for survivors, however, little integrative research exists. This scoping review aims to: identify and describe existing models of care that integrate PC and childhood cancer survivorship care, examine the effectiveness of these models of care, and characterise the barriers and facilitators for the integration of PC for CCS.

Methods and analysis A comprehensive empirical literature search of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase) was employed to identify potentially relevant citations on 1 October 2020. The population, independent variables/intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing, setting and study design/other limiters (PICOTSS) framework was used to inform protocol development. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and explanation will be used to report study findings. The search strategy will be completed again prior to publication to ensure recent empirical research is accounted for.

Ethics and dissemination This research is exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. Approval from a research ethics board for this study was not required as it does not involve human participants or unpublished secondary data. The findings from this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts, clinical conference presentations, professional networks and digital communications using social media platforms such as Twitter. This study has been registered with Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/92xbg.

  • Paediatric oncology
  • PRIMARY CARE
  • Quality in health care
  • ONCOLOGY
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059050

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • Knowledge gaps surrounding the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in childhood cancer survivorship care exist; therefore, the present review will provide a detailed synopsis of the international empirical literature surrounding models of care that integrate primary care (PC) and childhood cancer survivorship care, will examine the effectiveness of these models of care, and will characterise barriers and facilitators associated with integrating PC among childhood cancer survivorship care.

    • Models of care and measures of effectiveness identified will be used to provide recommendations for providers and healthcare systems regarding which patients are most likely to benefit from which model of care and in which care setting.

    • Rigorous research methods, expert medical research librarian services, three electronic databases, comprehensive and controlled search terms, and strict adherence to protocol will be used.

    • The population, independent variables/intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing, setting and study design/other limiters (PICOTSS) framework was used for protocol development, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and explanation will be used to report study findings.

    • Given the international inclusion criteria and a focus on existing, empirical research, it will not be feasible to perform a grey literature search from all of the included Commonwealth Fund high-income countries, preventing a characterisation of ongoing, unpublished research.

    Introduction

    More than 84% of all children diagnosed with cancer will experience long-term survival or cure.1 In the USA, there are over 500 000 childhood cancer survivors (CCS), with estimates that 1 in every 500 young adults is a CCS.2 Improved survival has been achieved through complex and often toxic treatment regimens. As a result, many CCS are at risk for developing late effects over their lifetime such as heart failure, infertility, second malignancies, neurocognitive deficits, early mortality, and adverse quality of life.3 For example, after 30 years of follow-up, 73% of adult CCS have reported having a chronic health condition and 43% have reported a severe or life-threatening health condition.4 5

    These complications of cancer treatment often necessitate lifelong follow-up medical care, as many of these conditions can be prevented or mitigated with surveillance.6 Components of cancer survivorship care include risk reduction and prevention; detection and surveillance of new and recurrent cancer; interventions for both short-term and long-term late effects from cancer and its treatment; psychosocial services; and coordination between specialists and primary care providers (PCPs).7 CCS face challenges surrounding follow-up care and the management of late effects, such as the transition both from paediatric to adult-focused care and from the oncology to primary care (PC) setting.8

    Existing models of long-term follow-up care for survivors of all ages have been categorised into eight broad categories by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).9 10 While some research has explored the integration of PC into models of follow-up care for adult survivors,11 little research has focused on the integration of PC and childhood cancer survivorship care.12 CCS experience distinct obstacles in obtaining follow-up care, such as a challenging transition from paediatric to adult care settings, compared with adult survivors.13 While this transition can be within oncology, PC, or a combination of both, it is often unstandardised, particularly within the transition to PC from oncological care. Attrition from a cancer-focused survivorship care setting is the norm for this population.13 After completing cancer treatment, many CCS receive their general healthcare from PCPs and report using PC more than the general population.14 15 In addition, older CCS are less likely to report a general health examination, a cancer-related health visit or a visit to a cancer centre than younger CCS.16 As such, the unique survivorship care needs among this population warrant distinct CCS-specific survivorship research.

    Evidence suggests that survivorship care models that incorporate PC may reduce demand on oncologists, increase care accessibility, and offer more comprehensive patient care.17 18 However, the successful implementation of these models is dependent on whether PCPs are equipped to deliver proper care that adequately addresses CCS’s complex healthcare needs. One challenge is that many PCPs lack formal training in childhood cancer survivorship care and therefore lack the knowledge to successfully manage their long-term follow-up care.19 20 While PCPs express a willingness to care for CCS with regard to the management of late effects, the majority do not feel prepared to deliver complex survivorship care related to patients’ specific cancer type.20–23 Therefore, more research on models of survivorship care that integrate PC among CCS is needed to address these barriers and facilitate the implementation of high-quality, guideline-concordant care for CCS.14

    Rationale

    Specialised oncology clinics have been viewed as the ‘gold standard’ for CCS,24 however, little is known about PC-specific barriers and facilitators for follow-up care among CCS who transition to a PC setting. Initial database searches from 1 October 2020 did not identify any scoping reviews that specifically address the implementation of PC within childhood cancer survivorship care. Further research is needed to describe and evaluate existing models of care, and to identify PC-specific factors that facilitate or hinder access, and continuity and transition of care. Therefore, we propose a scoping review that will identify and describe existing models of care that integrate PC and childhood cancer survivorship care; examine the effectiveness of these models of care; and characterise the barriers and facilitators for the integration of PC for CCS. The findings from this review will characterise existing PC-integrated childhood cancer survivorship care models and identify gaps in the literature for stakeholders and healthcare systems to effectively allocate resources to needed areas (ie, medical training).

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently published a research protocol focused on models of care that include PC for adult survivors of childhood cancer.25 While similar to the present review, multiple differences should be noted. First, the present review will use scoping review methodology while the AHRQ plans to use realist synthesis. Next, the AHRQ aims include a focus on programme theories. By contrast, the present review will detail barriers and facilitators for the integration of PC for childhood cancer survivorship care. Finally, the AHRQ review focuses on adult survivors of childhood cancer, while the present review does not require eligible studies to include exclusively adult CCS. Rather, we will not define the age range of participants beyond the requirement that they are diagnosed as children. The present study will also include providers part of the multidisciplinary cancer care team that may not be captured by the AHRQ review. We believe these respective reviews will collectively and in complementary fashion contribute to a broader characterisation of the integration of PC in childhood cancer survivorship care.

    Review objective

    The objective of this scoping review is to describe the state of the current, empirical, international PC-based childhood cancer survivorship literature using three guiding questions (GQs): GQ1. What models of cancer survivorship care that integrate PC exist for childhood cancer survivors? GQ2. What is the effectiveness of models of survivorship care that integrate PC for CCS? GQ3. What are the barriers and facilitators to the integration of PC into childhood cancer survivorship care?

    Methodology

    This manuscript details the protocol for a scoping review that is currently in progress. Scoping review methodology was identified to broadly characterise the state of the empirical literature surrounding the integration of PC and childhood cancer survivorship care to identify gaps in the literature and inform future, more detailed, research on the topic.26 The GQs were used to inform both the methods and search strategy for this scoping review. The protocol development was guided by the population, independent variables/intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing, setting and study design/other limiters (PICOTSS) framework. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and explanation will be used for reporting study findings.

    Eligibility criteria

    The PICOTSS framework was used to inform eligibility criteria to guide the inclusion of empirical research.27 The population includes CCS who are off treatment (diagnosed before age 21)28 and/or healthcare providers including general or PC practitioners (eg, PCPs, family practice physicians, gynaecologists) as well as various disciplines from the multidisciplinary cancer survivorship care team (eg, oncologists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, oncology nurses, etc). The independent variables and interventions include studies that incorporate both PC and childhood cancer survivorship care. Comparators include comparing CCS across different models of care to the general population and/or comparing PCPs to oncologists or other healthcare providers. Outcomes include reporting on the integration of PC for childhood cancer survivorship care, the effectiveness of this integration, and/or barriers and facilitators to integrate PC in childhood cancer survivorship care (ie, the GQ). Timing restrictions will not be used; therefore, studies may be published at any date and may include CCS who are either short-term or long-term survivors. The setting of included studies will be limited to those conducted in the Commonwealth Fund’s high-income country list, because the healthcare systems of these countries are often compared with the USA and is in accordance with prior research on a similar topic.28 29 In reporting our study findings, we will take each of these settings into account, considering varying resources, structures, and barriers that may be present in each of the healthcare settings from which relevant studies emerge. We will also consider the setting when reporting the implications of our findings for providers and healthcare systems alike. Study design and other limiters represent an inclusion of English-only publications and quantitative and/or qualitative studies. Additional details for inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies

    Only empirical studies will be included in the present review. While literature reviews are not eligible for inclusion, they will be retained for reference mining. (GQ1) Studies that are descriptive in nature and do not empirically address PC-integrative models of childhood cancer survivorship care will not be included. (GQ2) Studies that are determined to satisfy GQ1 will be subsequently screened for satisfaction of GQ2 (ie, providing an empirical measure of effectiveness of models of care). The author’s definition of an effective model of care will be accepted and no limitations regarding the outcome measure will be employed. Therefore, outcomes used by studies to determine model of care effectiveness may include, but are not limited to, the utilisation of follow-up care, adherence to screening guidelines, and patient and/or provider satisfaction, among others. (GQ3) Only PC-specific barriers and facilitators to childhood cancer survivorship care will be considered for inclusion in the present review. Studies do not have to satisfy GQ1 or GQ2 to be considered for GQ3. Each study can contribute to more than one GQ but is only required to satisfy one to meet inclusion criteria for this scoping review.

    Information sources and search strategy

    Detailed support from a skilled medical research librarian (LK) was leveraged to develop an inclusive and all-encompassing research strategy through controlled vocabulary terms (MeSH, EMTREE, or CINAHL Headings) that includes topics of cancer, PC-based survivorship care, and childhood cancer survivorship. Online supplemental appendix 1 details this developed search strategy. Three electronic databases were used: PubMed (National Library of Medicine), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Embase (Elsevier). The searches were first completed on 1 October 2020, and all citations were exported into an EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, USA) library. This search will be completed once more prior to publication of the scoping review to ensure recent publications are included.

    Due to both feasibility and a primary focus on characterising the state of the empirical, academic literature, a grey literature search will be excluded from the present study. The Commonwealth Fund’s high-income countries inclusion criteria employed broadens our understanding of the existing empirical literature but hinders our ability to satisfy this criterion while performing a comprehensive grey literature search across international healthcare settings. While a grey literature search will not be performed, references of included studies will be scanned to identify any empirical research satisfying inclusion criteria that may be missed by the search strategy.

    Methods limitations

    While the methods are strengthened due to the international inclusion criteria, they may be limited as only studies in English will be included due to challenges associated with translating non-English articles. Similarly, grey literature, while valuable for combating biases in publication, will not be included due to feasibility. Further, the present study does not provide an evaluation of the quality of the empirical research identified, but rather characterises the literature to describe the existing state of PC-integrative models of childhood cancer survivorship care.

    Selection of sources of evidence

    The search strategy identified a total of 4522 records. After importing into Covidence (Melbourne, Australia), an online software for managing systematic reviews, 30 duplicate records were identified and were subsequently removed. Therefore, a total of 4492 records will be screened against the inclusion criteria (PubMed (n=1799); Embase (n=1410), and CINAHL (n=1253)). Initially, four independent literature reviewers (SEP, JS, DK, and KAM) will screen all records for satisfaction of the PICOTSS inclusion criteria based on both their titles and abstracts. Any records that are determined to potentially satisfy inclusion criteria by two reviewers will be included at this stage. Next, two independent literature reviewers (SEP and JS) will screen each of the previously identified records to determine final inclusion in the scoping review and reasons for exclusion will be documented. Any disagreements will be resolved through both group discussion and group consensus (SEP, JS, DK, and KAM). The search strategy will be re-ran prior to manuscript submission to capture recent studies.

    Data charting process

    References will be managed using EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics), a citation management software. Data from studies selected for inclusion in the present study will be charted using a standardised data charting form developed in accordance with prior research on a similar topic28 (table 2).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Data charting form

    Data will be abstracted from published studies using Qualtrics (Qualtrics XM, Seattle, USA), a web-based survey tool. Data charting will be conducted by one literature reviewer and will be subsequently verified for accuracy by a different independent reviewer not previously involved in screening. Any disagreements that may arise will be resolved through group discussion and group consensus (SEP, JS, DK, and KAM)

    Synthesis of results

    The PRISMA-ScR checklist and explanation will be used to report study findings.30 Several figures and tables will be used to report scoping review findings upon manuscript completion (note: only tables 1 and 2 are complete and thus presented in the current protocol as data collection is not yet complete). An online supplemental appendix will detail each of the studies selected for inclusion in the present review and will include first author name, title, year of publication, country of study location, sample, study design, and an overview of the main findings. A PRISMA study flow diagram including identified references, stages of screening, reasons for exclusion, and final study selections will be presented. Table 1 displaying the PICOTSS inclusion/exclusion criteria and table 2 displaying the data charting form will be included as shown in the present protocol manuscript. Subsequent tables, corresponding to findings associated with the GQs, will represent models of care that integrate PC for CCS; detail the effectiveness of PC-integrative models of cancer survivorship care for CCS (including metric of effectiveness and subsequent findings); and present barriers and facilitators for the integration of PC into childhood cancer survivorship care (including whether the barriers and facilitators represent patient-level, provider-level, or system-level factors), respectively. Should additional information become relevant, modifications to the presentation of research findings will be accommodated.

    Patient and public involvement

    No patients or participants will be included in the present study due to the nature of exploring secondary data through a scoping review. Our research team includes two physicians with experience providing both PC and childhood cancer survivorship care (BJT and DRF, respectively), an academic researcher with an extensive history conducting cancer research (KAM), a skilled research librarian with extensive experience synthesising literature (LK), and three advanced doctoral students with a demonstrated focus on cancer survivorship research (SEP, JS, and DK). Each member of the study team has provided detailed guidance and input for the design and development of the study protocol and will continue to help inform our ongoing research efforts.

    Ethics and dissemination

    This research is exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. Approval from a research ethics board was not required as the present study does not involve human participants or unpublished secondary data. Study findings will be interpreted and refined with content experts (DRF, BJT, and KAM) in childhood cancer survivorship care, PC, and evaluating models of healthcare delivery. Our target audiences include healthcare professionals involved with childhood cancer survivorship, specifically oncologists and PCPs, healthcare stakeholders, CCS, and their families. Scoping review findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts, clinical conference presentations, professional networks, and digital communications using social media platforms such as Twitter.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Siegel RL,
      2. Miller KD,
      3. Jemal A
      . Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70:7–30.doi:10.3322/caac.21590pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31912902
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Yeh JM,
      2. Ward ZJ,
      3. Chaudhry A, et al
      . Life expectancy of adult survivors of childhood cancer over 3 decades. JAMA Oncol 2020;6:350.doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5582pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31895405
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Suh E,
      2. Stratton KL,
      3. Leisenring WM, et al
      . Late mortality and chronic health conditions in long-term survivors of early-adolescent and young adult cancers: a retrospective cohort analysis from the childhood cancer Survivor study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:421–35.doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30800-9pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/32066543
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Oeffinger KC,
      2. Mertens AC,
      3. Sklar CA, et al
      . Chronic health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1572–82.doi:10.1056/NEJMsa060185pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/17035650
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Armstrong GT,
      2. Kawashima T,
      3. Leisenring W, et al
      . Aging and risk of severe, disabling, life-threatening, and fatal events in the childhood cancer Survivor study. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1218–27.doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.51.1055pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/24638000
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Bhatia S,
      2. Meadows AT
      . Long-Term follow-up of childhood cancer survivors: future directions for clinical care and research. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2006;46:143–8.doi:10.1002/pbc.20613pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/16317758
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Hewitt ME,
      2. Ganz PA
      . Institute of medicine (U.S.), American Society of clinical oncology (U.S.). from cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2006.
    8. ↵
      1. Henderson TO,
      2. Friedman DL,
      3. Meadows AT
      . Childhood cancer survivors: transition to adult-focused risk-based care. Pediatrics 2010;126:129–36.doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2802pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/20547645
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. ASCO
      . American Society of clinical oncology: models of long-term follow-up care. Available: https://www.asco.org/news-initiatives/current-initiatives/cancer-care-initiatives/prevention-survivorship/survivorship-3
    10. ↵
      1. Kinahan KE,
      2. Sanford S,
      3. Sadak KT, et al
      . Models of cancer survivorship care for adolescents and young adults. Semin Oncol Nurs 2015;31:251–9.doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2015.05.005pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/26210203
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Nekhlyudov L,
      2. O'malley DM,
      3. Hudson SV
      . Integrating primary care providers in the care of cancer survivors: gaps in evidence and future opportunities. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:e30–8.doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30570-8pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/28049575
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Tsui J,
      2. Hudson SV,
      3. Rubinstein EB, et al
      . A mixed-methods analysis of the capacity of the patient-centered medical home to implement care coordination services for cancer survivors. Transl Behav Med 2018;8:319–27.doi:10.1093/tbm/ibx059pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/29800396
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Otth M,
      2. Denzler S,
      3. Koenig C, et al
      . Transition from pediatric to adult follow-up care in childhood cancer survivors-a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv 2021;15:151–62.doi:10.1007/s11764-020-00920-9pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/32676793
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Children’s Oncology Group
      . Long-Term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood, adolescent and young adult cancers. in: version 5.0. Monrovia, CA, 2018.
    15. ↵
      1. Streefkerk N,
      2. Heins MJ,
      3. Teepen JC, et al
      . The involvement of primary care physicians in care for childhood cancer survivors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2019;66:e27774.doi:10.1002/pbc.27774pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31033160
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Oeffinger KC,
      2. Mertens AC,
      3. Hudson MM, et al
      . Health care of young adult survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the childhood cancer Survivor study. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:61–70.doi:10.1370/afm.26pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/15053285
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      1. Kirchhoff AC,
      2. Montenegro RE,
      3. Warner EL, et al
      . Childhood cancer survivors' primary care and follow-up experiences. Support Care Cancer 2014;22:1629–35.doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2130-6pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/24496759
      OpenUrlPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Meacham LR,
      2. Edwards PJ,
      3. Cherven BO, et al
      . Primary care providers as partners in long-term follow-up of pediatric cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 2012;6:270–7.doi:10.1007/s11764-012-0224-zpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/22562474
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Rokitka DA,
      2. Curtin C,
      3. Heffler JE, et al
      . Patterns of loss to follow-up care among childhood cancer survivors. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2017;6:67–73.doi:10.1089/jayao.2016.0023pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/27529650
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Nathan PC,
      2. Daugherty CK,
      3. Wroblewski KE, et al
      . Family physician preferences and knowledge gaps regarding the care of adolescent and young adult survivors of childhood cancer. J Cancer Surviv 2013;7:275–82.doi:10.1007/s11764-013-0271-0pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/23471729
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Geramita EM,
      2. Parker IR,
      3. Brufsky JW, et al
      . Primary care providers' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding their preparedness to provide cancer survivorship care. J Cancer Educ 2020;35:1219–26.doi:10.1007/s13187-019-01585-4pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/31388974
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Mertens AC,
      2. Cotter KL,
      3. Foster BM, et al
      . Improving health care for adult survivors of childhood cancer: recommendations from a Delphi panel of health policy experts. Health Policy 2004;69:169–78.doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.12.008pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/15212864
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Blaauwbroek R,
      2. Zwart N,
      3. Bouma M, et al
      . The willingness of general practitioners to be involved in the follow-up of adult survivors of childhood cancer. J Cancer Surviv 2007;1:292–7.doi:10.1007/s11764-007-0032-zpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/18648964
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Aziz NM,
      2. Oeffinger KC,
      3. Brooks S, et al
      . Comprehensive long-term follow-up programs for pediatric cancer survivors. Cancer 2006;107:841–8.doi:10.1002/cncr.22096pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/16886175
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      Research protocol: models of care that include primary care for adult survivors of childhood cancer. Rockville, MD: effective health care program, agency for healthcare research and quality; content last reviewed December 2020.
    26. ↵
      1. Munn Z,
      2. Peters MDJ,
      3. Stern C, et al
      . Systematic review or scoping review? guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:143.doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-xpmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/30453902
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Matchar DB
      . Chapter 1: introduction to the methods guide for medical test reviews. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27:4–10.doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1798-2
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      1. Mobley EM,
      2. Moke DJ,
      3. Milam J
      . AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Technical Briefs. In: Disparities and barriers to pediatric cancer survivorship care. Rockville (MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2021.
    29. ↵
      1. Schneider EC,
      2. Sarnak DO,
      3. Squires D
      . Mirror, mirror 2017: international comparison reflects flaws and opportunities for better U.S. health care. The Commonwealth Fund, 2017.
    30. ↵
      1. Tricco AC,
      2. Lillie E,
      3. Zarin W, et al
      . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.doi:10.7326/M18-0850pmid:http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/pubmed/30178033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • SEP and JS are joint first authors.

    • Twitter @JuliaStal1

    • SEP and JS contributed equally.

    • Contributors SEP: conceptualisation, methodology, project administration, supervision, validation, writing-original draft, reviewing and editing. JS: conceptualisation, methodology, project administration, supervision, validation, writing-original draft, reviewing and editing. DK: writing-reviewing and editing. LK: project administration, resources, software, writing-reviewing and editing. DRF: writing-reviewing and editing. BJT: writing-reviewing and editing. KAM: conceptualisation, methodology, supervision, writing-original draft, reviewing and editing.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests Author LK received an honorarium by the Southern California Association for Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurses (SCAPHON).

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.