Next Article in Journal
Pre-Transplant Marital Status and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Outcomes
Previous Article in Journal
Economic Evaluation of Adjuvant Trastuzumab Emtansine in Patients with HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer and Residual Invasive Disease after Neoadjuvant Taxane and Trastuzumab–Based Treatment in Canada
 
 
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Primary Care Use after Cancer Treatment: An Analysis of Linked Administrative Data

1
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
2
Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2020, 27(6), 590-595; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.27.5993
Submission received: 8 September 2020 / Revised: 13 October 2020 / Accepted: 9 November 2020 / Published: 1 December 2020

Abstract

Background: Primary care–led follow-up is a safe and acceptable alternative to oncologist-led follow-up. We sought to investigate patterns of primary care use during cancer follow-up care. Methods: We identified all persons in Nova Scotia, diagnosed with an invasive breast, prostate, colorectal, or gynecologic cancer between January 2006 and December 2013. We linked this dataset to cancer centre, hospital discharge abstracts, physicians’ billing, and census data. We identified a survivor cohort (n = 12,201), then descriptively examined primary care use during follow-up care. Multivariate Poisson and negative binomial regression, respectively, were used to examine primary care use for two outcomes: total number of primary care provider (pcp) visits (all reasons) and total number of cancer-specific pcp visits. Results: The mean numbers of pcp visits (all reasons) and cancer-specific pcp visits per year for survivors who did not receive cancer centre follow-up (cc-fup) were 8.12 and 0.43 visits, respectively, and for survivors who continued to receive cc-fup were 8.75 and 0.63 visits, respectively. Age, cancer type, stage at diagnosis, comorbidity scores, year of diagnosis, and receipt of cc-fup were associated with both outcomes. Compared with prostate cancer survivors, breast, colorectal, and gynecologic cancer survivors had, respectively, 56%, 69%, and 56% fewer expected cancer-specific PCP visits. Receipt of cc-fup increased the expected number of pcp visits (all reasons) by 12% and cancer-specific pcp visits by 50%. Conclusions: Primary care use was higher in survivors who continued to visit their oncology teams for follow-up. This suggests that survivors who remain with their oncology teams after treatment continue to have high needs not met by these teams alone.
Keywords: survivorship; follow-up care; administrative health data survivorship; follow-up care; administrative health data

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Urquhart, R.; Lethbridge, L. Primary Care Use after Cancer Treatment: An Analysis of Linked Administrative Data. Curr. Oncol. 2020, 27, 590-595. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.27.5993

AMA Style

Urquhart R, Lethbridge L. Primary Care Use after Cancer Treatment: An Analysis of Linked Administrative Data. Current Oncology. 2020; 27(6):590-595. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.27.5993

Chicago/Turabian Style

Urquhart, R., and L. Lethbridge. 2020. "Primary Care Use after Cancer Treatment: An Analysis of Linked Administrative Data" Current Oncology 27, no. 6: 590-595. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.27.5993

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop