Factors influencing cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care: results from the pan-Canadian Experiences of Cancer Patients in Transition Study survey.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care.

Methods: In 2016, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer collected survey responses from cancer survivors about their experiences with follow-up cancer care. We included respondents from this survey if they were diagnosed with non-metastatic breast, hematologic, colon, melanoma, and prostate cancer. Our primary outcome was cancer survivors' self-reported overall experience with follow-up cancer care. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the influence of individual and structural factors on cancer survivors' experiences with follow-up cancer care.

Results: Of the 8402 cancer survivors included in our study, 81.8% (n = 6,875) reported a positive experience with their follow-up cancer care. The individual factors associated with positive overall experiences were more commonly those associated with self-perceptions of respondents' personal health and well-being rather than baseline sociodemographic factors, such as sex, income, or education. For example, respondents were more likely to report a positive experience if they perceived their quality of life as good (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5, p < 0.01) or reported not having an unmet practical concern (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p < 0.01). The structural factors most strongly associated with positive overall experiences included respondents perceiving their oncology specialist was in charge of their follow-up cancer care (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.6-7.5, p < 0.01) and reporting the coordination of their follow-up cancer care among healthcare providers was good or very good (OR 8.4, 95% CI 6.7-10.6, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: While real-world experiences with follow-up cancer care in Canada are reported to be positive by most cancer survivors included in this study, we found differences exist based on individual and structural factors. A better understanding of the reasons for these differences is required to guide the provision of high-quality follow-up care that is adapted to the needs and resources of individuals and contexts.