Here we describe the design and implementation of, as well as use patterns and user satisfaction with, Internet-based survivorship care plans for cancer survivors. To our knowledge, OncoLife is the first such tool to be made publicly available. The intent of survivorship care plans is multifold: Plans are developed to assist with communication between physicians of various specialties, to increase physician-patient communication, and to increase awareness in both the physician and survivor populations of known and suspected late-effects associated with cancer and its treatments. The use of the Internet to allow creation of survivorship care plans allows information to be widely accessible and instantly available.
Based on the NCI definition of a cancer survivor, which includes all people diagnosed with cancer, as well as their caregivers, as survivors, several phases of survivorship certainly exist, and the needs of any one survivor may change dramatically over time.
OncoLife survivorship care plans may be of use to survivors in any phase—from the moment of diagnosis until the end of life; however, their design may be most appropriate for those survivors who have completed cancer treatment or who continue to receive long-term cancer treatment. For this group of survivors, for whom the acute phase of cancer treatment may have ended, the designation of which health care provider(s) will provide various types of health care may be particularly ambiguous. This transition period may be associated with both survivor and physician uncertainty and dissatisfaction [
9,
10], potentially leading to important disparities in health care. Although all survivors may potentially be at risk for receiving inadequate health care after cancer treatment, prior data suggests those followed by an oncologic specialist may be more likely to receive adequate screening for late effects and disease recurrence [
6], while those followed by a PCP may be more likely to receive adequate preventive care [
5,
7]. In reality, however, most survivors do not appear to be followed by both types of providers [
7], a finding that is confirmed by users of
OncoLife: Approximately one third of survivors using
OncoLife reported routinely receiving follow-up care from both a PCP and an oncologist. Of the remaining two-thirds, the majority reported seeing only an oncologist. These findings emphasize the need for comprehensive communication among physicians and between physicians and survivors. The vast majority of survivors utilizing
OncoLife reported never having received survivorship information, and this suggests a broad communication deficit. Both PCP feedback and the improvement in comprehensive care when survivors are followed by multiple physicians indicate that gaps in communication are a significant barrier to care of cancer survivors. Survivorship care plans are a communication bridge between physicians and survivors, allowing all of the individuals involved in a survivor’s care (including the survivor) to be aware of survivorship health issues and to be assured that they are addressed.
According to the IOM, survivorship care plans should address issues of health maintenance, cancer screening, healthy behaviors, late effects of treatment, possible signs of recurrence, second malignancy risk, and financial consequences of cancer, and they should offer referrals to follow-up providers and lists of cancer-related resources [
8]. Not surprisingly, in our current milieu of shrinking resources, the oncology community has expressed concern regarding time and monetary constraints limiting the feasibility of offering survivorship care plans, specifically voicing concerns that a survivorship care plan tool requiring more than 20 minutes per patient would be unrealistic [
25]. The IOM recommended in its report that the service of provision of survivorship care plans “be reimbursed by third-party payers of health care” [
8]. Hopefully, this concept will become reality in the future—the Comprehensive Cancer Care Improvement Act, currently under consideration in the US (HR. 1078/S. 2790), would allow Medicare reimbursement for oncologists to create survivorship care plans. In the meantime,
OncoLife has been designed as a free service that does not rely on insurance re-imbursement, and
OncoLife surveys take on average less than 7 minutes to complete. Both survivors and health care providers report high levels of satisfaction utilizing
OncoLife, a tool that provides survivors with timely, comprehensive information that addresses the goals delineated by the IOM without insurance or payment delays.
The data presented here demonstrate that survivors, as well as their family members, friends, and health care providers, appear to be willing to use this type of tool. From our data, certain subsets of survivors appear more likely to use
OncoLife than others—breast cancer survivors represent approximately one-quarter of adult cancer survivors living in the US today (22%) [
1] and 45% of
OncoLife users. This stands in contrast to prostate cancer survivors, who represent the second most prominent survivor population in the US (17%) [
1] but only 6% of
OncoLife users. The disproportionately low use of
OncoLife by prostate cancer survivors is in all likelihood multifactorial and may have to do with decreased awareness of survivorship issues in this population when compared to the breast cancer survivor population. Another contributing factor may be the overall increased frequency of Internet use by women as opposed to men for health care needs [
26-
27]. Additionally,
OncoLife users were predominantly Caucasian, well-educated, and young when compared to the overall survivor population. In 2001, persons over 65 years represented 61% of all cancer survivors [
1], while the median age of
OncoLife users was 51 years. These findings may reflect increased Internet access and level of comfort with Internet use among younger survivors, and are consistent with findings from other groups demonstrating increased Internet use in young, highly educated cancer survivors [
28] and under representation of African Americans in online cancer support groups [
29]. Since the initial development of
OncoLife, efforts have been made to increase accessibility to underserved populations, including translation of
OncoLife into Spanish, distribution of
OncoLife materials at national meetings to health care providers for distribution to patients, and use of
OncoLife by nurses at the University of Pennsylvania who complete surveys for patients when they complete cancer treatment. The vast majority of health care providers utilizing
OncoLife are nurses, and oncology nurses represent a tremendous resource for provision of survivorship care plans to survivors with limited access to the Internet. Efforts are underway to raise awareness among nurses nationwide of the
OncoLife tool. Efforts to further increase accessibility will continue with future iterations. Additionally, as more centers make use of computer-based data gathering by and for patients, we expect that availability of
OncoLife to patients completing cancer treatment will continue to increase.
The anonymous nature of
OncoLife has been maintained in order to protect user privacy and alleviate survivor fear of discrimination following cancer diagnosis; data obtained via
OncoLife use is, however, limited by its anonymous nature. Data are strictly based on user responses and cannot be verified or validated. National efforts are ongoing to provide cancer survivors with comprehensive summaries of all cancer treatments received, which can then be entered directly into a tool such as
OncoLife. Future versions of this program may be interfaced directly with electronic medical records to ensure accuracy of all data. Although nearly all users reported having access to the information needed to create a care plan using
OncoLife, it is conceivable that other survivors might not utilize the tool because of limited access to information needed to complete the survey. Additionally, because users are not required to “log in,” plans are not currently saved on our system, although they may be printed and/or converted to electronic files for users themselves to save (both options are available at the time of survivorship care plan production). Future
OncoLife iterations may be developed with a log in option, so that users may return to their own plans and update their information in order to received updated guidelines. Other limitations of
OncoLife are associated with the current lack of evidence allowing construction of guidelines for follow-up care of patients after cancer. Our data suggest that most cancer survivors utilizing
OncoLife have undergone multimodality treatment and are at risk for late effects; however, recognition of this risk may not translate into clear screening recommendations: Cardiac toxicity is recognized as a concern for survivors of breast cancer [
30], but ASCO guidelines for screening for cardiac late effects do not exist due to “the lack of direct, high-quality evidence on the benefits and harms of [this] screening” [
31]. In the development of
OncoLife, we described published, evidence-based guidelines whenever possible, and lacking those, consensus-based guidelines. In situations in which these types of published guidelines are not available,
OncoLife information is provided to increase survivor and physician awareness of late effects and their possible treatments. Only a small fraction of
OncoLife users (12%) reported ever having received survivorship information in the past. Certainly, our hope is that the information provided by
OncoLife, whether evidence-, consensus-, or practice-based, will be useful to survivors, especially in a setting in which most report having had very little information offered to them. Future efforts will focus on increasing the individualization of
OncoLife survivorship care plans, as well as understanding of the survivorship population in efforts to expand use and accessibility.
1 Carolyn Vachani, MSN, RN, AOCN,1 Margaret K Hampshire, RN, BSN, OCN,1 Linda A Jacobs, PhD, RN,2 and James M Metz, MD1
This article has been 
