• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
CA Cancer J Clin. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jan 4, 2012.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3058905
NIHMSID: NIHMS236820

Self-Management: Enabling and empowering patients living with cancer as a chronic illness

Ruth McCorkle, PhD, RN, FAAN, Elizabeth Ercolano, DNSC, RN, Mark Lazenby, PhD, RN, Dena Schulman-Green, PhD, Lynne S. Schilling, PhD, RN, Kate Lorig, PhD, and Edward H. Wagner, M.D.

Abstract

With recent improvements in early detection, diagnosis and treatment of cancer, people with cancer are living longer, and their cancer may be managed as a chronic illness. Cancer as a chronic illness places new demands on patients and families to manage their own care, and it challenges old paradigms that oncology's work is done after treatment. As a chronic illness, however, cancer care occurs on a continuum that stretches from prevention to the end of life, with early detection, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship in between. In this paper, we review self-management interventions that enable patients and families to participate in managing their care along this continuum. We review randomized controlled trials of self-management interventions with cancer patients and families in the treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life phases of the cancer-care continuum. We also present the Chronic Care Model as a model of care that oncology practices can use to enable and empower patients and families to engage in self-management. We conclude that, the need for a common language by which to speak about self-management and a common set of self-management actions for cancer care notwithstanding, oncology practices can now build strong relationships with their patients and formulate mutually-agreed upon care plans that enable and empower patients to care for themselves in the way they prefer.

Keywords: Chronic illness, Chronic Care Model, self-management, cancer, survivorship

Introduction

Over the last two decades, substantial progress has been made in the early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. This progress means that more and more patients may be freed of their cancer. The disease of yet others may be managed as a chronic illness requiring long-term surveillance and, in some cases, treatment. With ongoing survivorship and current shifts in insurance coverage that limit time with providers, patients are expected to assume a greater role in managing their follow-up care. Because of this, the management of care overlaps among patients, providers, and health care systems. The complexities of these overlaps demand new models of care.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s 2005 report, From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition1, identified six major phases on the cancer-care continuum: prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care. From the IOM's notion of the cancer-care continuum, new models of cancer care need to arise. Changing health care delivery systems in the United States add to this need. New models must enable oncology providers to form partnerships with patients and families, and other providers, such as primary care clinicians.

The cancer-care continuum is a useful paradigm for planning and testing interventions that improve clinical outcomes and enhance patients' quality of life (QOL). However, paradigms do not change easily, especially paradigms in which providers have historically told patients what to do and expect patients to follow their orders. The notion of the cancer-care continuum challenges this paternalistic paradigm. Providers, patients, and families need to see that now care is long-term, extending beyond an acute phase. This longer term necessitates discussing patients' short-term and long-term goals and including these goals in action plans to the degree they are medically realistic. This kind of long-term planning requires an ongoing collaborative relationship between patients and providers instead of an acute, prescriptive relationship.

In this paper we explore self-management (SM) as a model of cancer care that involves providers forming partnerships with patients and families. These partnerships enable and empower patients and families to achieve their own goals of care—at all phases along the cancer-care continuum. We review evidence from successful randomized clinical trials with cancer patients that incorporate components of SM interventions. We use the Chronic Care Model as a paradigm for oncology practices to use in order to enable and empower patients to engage in SM. Our purpose is to show that by using SM interventions, oncology providers can enable and empower patients and families to care for themselves, in partnership with their providers, across the cancer-care continuum in the way they mutually determine.

Self-Management

Definition of SM

The concept of SM has come of age after more than four decades of scientific consideration2. SM has been variously defined, but all definitions are broader than the mere following of medical advice. For example, Barlow has defined SM as a person's ability to manage the symptoms and the consequences of living with a chronic condition, including treatment, physical, social and lifestyle changes.3 Lorig and Holman4 point out that, even if one does not have a chronic condition, it is impossible not to manage one's health; however, if one does have a chronic illness, SM is a “lifetime task” (p. 1). Lorig and Holman identify the aim of SM as keeping wellness in one's psychological foreground. To do this, the person with chronic illness has three SM tasks, which were originally described by Corbin and Strauss5: managing the medical aspects of the illness; managing life roles, including changes in roles brought on by the illness; and managing the psychological consequences of chronic illness6. To accomplish these tasks, people with chronic illness need the following core SM skills: problem-solving, decision-making, resource utilization, forming partnerships with health care providers, and taking action4. In addition to core tasks and skills, SM is defined by its being set within the context of the family7,8, by being a lifelong dynamic process of self-monitoring and self-evaluation2, and by involving a perspectival shift from illness to wellness4. SM Support has been defined by the IOM in its 2003 report Priority Areas for National Action: Transforming Health Care Quality, as “the systematic provision of education and supportive interventions by health care staff to increase patients' skills and confidence in managing their health problems, including regular assessment of progress and problems, goal setting and problem-solving support” (p. 57)9. Based on this review of SM definitions, we understand SM as those tasks that individuals undertake to deal with the medical, role, and emotional management of their health condition(s).

Review of Literature on SM Interventions in Cancer Care

Over the last two decades, a number of intervention studies have demonstrated significant improvements in patients' outcomes at different phases on the cancer-care continuum. We summarize what we believe are some of the major scientific advances in SM in cancer in the treatment, post-treatment, and end-of-life phases of the cancer-care continuum.

For this review, three major databases were searched (Medline, CINAHL, and PubMed) from 1992-2007. The terms “self-management interventions,” “illness self-management interventions,” “self-care interventions,” “psychoeducation interventions,” “cognitive-behavioral interventions”, “neoplasm,” “oncology,” and “cancer” were entered as keywords. Results were limited to English language, intervention studies, and abstract review was conducted to further limit the sample to articles that included interventions with adult cancer patients. Thirty-two intervention studies were identified. Of the 32 intervention studies, ten either mixed or did not report phase of treatment, did not include description of the intervention, or were not randomized; these were excluded. Of the remaining 22, six studies were co-authored by the investigators included in this review; only one example of their work was included. The remaining 16 reviewed appear in Table 1. We reviewed these studies to identify common intervention components that are conceptually linked or overlap with SM and have consistent outcomes. We present these results in line with phases of the cancer-care continuum: SM during treatment, SM during post-treatment phase and SM at the end of life.

Table 1
Self-Management and Cancer Intervention Studies

SM During Treatment

When cancer treatments such as chemo- and radiation-therapy proved to be safe enough so as to require less intensive monitoring by health care professionals, the outpatient clinic replaced the hospital as the delivery setting. As a result, the expectation for cancer patients to participate in their care and manage treatment-effects between visits emerged as a demand that could no longer be ignored by oncology health care professionals. Initial studies, therefore, focused on interventions that encourage patients to take active roles in preventing or managing chemotherapy-related or disease-related symptoms. The PRO-SELF Program10, for example, was designed by oncology nurse researchers as a self-care intervention for common symptoms associated with chemotherapy, symptoms such as oral mucositis, nausea and vomiting, and infection. Although the initial intervention did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups in reducing symptom severity, participants reported benefit. The PRO-SELF Program was tested again on cancer patients' unmet pain needs. The PRO-SELF Pain Control Program (PSPC) intervention supported patients in their management of cancer-related bone pain by encouraging patients to assess their pain themselves, to use appropriate analgesics, and to dose themselves around-the-clock in order to keep pain from worsening. Participants in the experimental arm of the PSPC reported significantly less pain intensity than control participants (p=≤.001) and used more appropriate pain medications than control group participants over time11.

Researchers have recognized the role of SM in managing the psychological, emotional, and existential consequences of the cancer treatment experience. To address these issues Braden, Mishel & Longman12 tested the effects of a self-help intervention protocol (SHIP) with women with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant treatment, the purpose of which was to increase knowledge about cancer, improve problem-solving, redirect negative thinking, promote effective communication with health care professionals, and to minimize uncertainty. Their study found that participants demonstrated increased levels of self-care, self-help, psychological adjustment, and confidence in cancer knowledge (p=≤.003).

Although the SHIP intervention was not intentionally designed to decrease disease- and treatment-side effects, Badger, Braden, and Mishel13 hypothesized the SHIP problem-solving and self-help skill components could potentially alter symptom-burden. As a result, the investigators modified their intervention to include content about early recognition and self-management of disabling symptoms. This modified intervention resulted in significant improvement in fatigue, pain, and nausea (p=.04) experienced by those women in treatment for breast cancer with known depression.

The debilitating effect of cancer surgeries on function and other parameters of QOL, along with the need to prepare for additional cancer treatments, prompted studies to address support for patients and families after surgery14. We (McCorkle et al.)15 examined the effects of a standard nursing intervention protocol (SNIP) delivered by advanced practice oncology nurses on older post-surgical cancer patients' physical, functional, emotional, and psychological recovery in the home setting. The SNIP consisted of clinical assessments, monitoring of potential complications, and teaching complex skills to patients and families at home in order for them to manage their own care and coordinate resources to meet their ongoing needs. The SNIP increased survival significantly for late-stage patients in the intervention group (p=.0001). Eventually, the SNIP was modified to include a tailored intervention for both physical and psychological effects in post-surgical women with gynecological cancer. In addition, the SNIP was extended from one month to six months to support ongoing skills training and SM of physical and emotional effects in the adjuvant treatment setting along with preparation for post-primary treatment follow-up. For this group of women, the SNIP significantly reduced uncertainty in the intervention group; the intervention sub-group that received additional psychological support showed significant improvement in mental and physical QOL (p=.0001), less uncertainty (p=.0023), and less symptom distress (p=.0001).

The role of nurses in delivering SM interventions with positive outcomes has been confirmed in other studies, as well. For example, Given et al.16 built on previous psychoeducational and behavioral interventions for specific cancers and specific symptoms to develop a nurse-delivered intervention to reduce the severity of 15 prevalent physical and psychological symptoms for patients with a variety of solid tumors receiving chemotherapy for the first time. Along with counseling and support, nurses delivered standardized information and used problem-solving approaches for symptom SM. The study found decreased symptom severity for patients who entered the intervention with higher symptom severity (p=.01) 16.

The Given et al.16 intervention was later modified to compare a nurse-assisted symptom management protocol (NASM) with an automated-telephone symptom-management protocol (ATSM). The NASM intervention also introduced a detailed evidence-based manual, the Symptom Management Toolkit (SMT). The SMT contained strategies patients could use at home to prevent or manage common symptoms associated with chemotherapy. Both the NASM and ATSM interventions resulted in a clinically significant reduction in symptom severity. The effect sizes were basically identical (0.56 NASM, 0.59, ATSM) 17. The effect sizes are just above the median in Cohen's classification, thus yielding clinically significant improvement over baseline.

Recognizing the vulnerabilities of families and caregivers during the cancer treatment phase of the cancer-care continuum, the Enhancing Connections Program (EC)18 was designed to deal with the distress experienced by mothers with breast cancer and the negative adjustment of their school-age children. Specifically, the EC Program supported mothers by helping them gain confidence to parent their children with positive attitudes and behaviors, thereby encouraging positive coping skills in their children. The EC Program also helped study participants to deal with their depressed mood and anxieties. Participants' pre- and post-test measures of depression (p=.03), anxiety (p=.02), and self-confidence (p=.006) improved significantly. Mothers and fathers also reported significant decreases in their children's behavioral problems. The children themselves reported less cancer-related worry (p=.04).

In another study, the FOCUS (family involvement, optimistic attitude, coping, effectiveness, uncertainty reduction, and symptom management) study19 tested whether women with advanced breast cancer and their family caregivers reported better QOL compared to other patients and families not participating in FOCUS. In the FOCUS intervention, a nurse guided, supported, and taught patients and their families more effective coping skills, such as open and effective communication, ways to deal with uncertainty in order to maintain hope, and strategies to deal with common symptoms. Women who participated in the FOCUS intervention reported significantly less hopelessness (p=.002) and less negative appraisal (p=.04) than women who did not receive the intervention, and family caregivers reported significantly less negative appraisal (p=.04) associated with caregiving.

SM During the Post-Treatment Phase

Evidence suggests that SM strategies may benefit patients as they transition from the end of primary treatment to survivorship. The demands of survivorship include regularly participating in routine but less frequent oncology visits, understanding the signs and symptoms of disease recurrence, adjusting to and managing the late-term effects of cancer and cancer-treatment, re-establishing normal routines and social roles, and dealing with residual psychological distress in order to minimize negative impact on QOL and relationships.

Ganz et al. and Stanton20,21 conducted a multi-site randomized clinical trial of psychoeducation interventions on a cohort of post-surgical breast cancer patients. The intervention was designed to assist breast cancer patients to improve fatigue and energy and cancer-specific distress. Energy and fatigue of the SF-36 vitality subscale improved in the intervention group (p=.018). The group who received the education component reported significantly less cancer-related distress (p=.037) as measured by the SF-36 mental health subscale and CESD at six months.

The period after primary treatment carries with it its own set of psychosocial and QOL adjustments. The aim of the Taking Charge intervention22, based on principles inherent in SM, was to help a group of women with breast cancer address and overcome concerns associated with the end of primary treatment and concerns about life experiences in the post-treatment phase. Process evaluations of the program revealed that participants rated it as having high utility in dealing with their post-treatment concerns.

Evidence is also growing about the importance of a healthy lifestyle during the post-treatment phase. Studies testing health-oriented lifestyle modifications during the post-treatment period have primarily focused on cancers with good prognoses and extended survival. One exception is the study by Damush, Perkins, and Miller23. Their study tested the effects of a SM exercise program on older breast cancer survivors. The exercise program successfully reduced participants' perceived barriers to exercise (p=≤.02). Moreover, the older women in the study increased their weekly frequency and duration of physical activity (p=≤.04).

SM at the End of Life

The needs of patients and families living with advanced cancer intensify as death grows closer. The physical changes associated with a disease that is unable to be controlled results in loss of the capacity to manage aspects of medical regimens and activities of daily living. In addition, the stress of living in this context of ongoing loss brings new challenges, such as when to turn over illness and general life responsibilities to others and whether to talk about or act on emotional and spiritual concerns. Health care professionals and researchers recognize that the inevitable increasing symptom burden does not preclude patients acting on their own behalf in terms of maintaining a reasonable QOL, maintaining their current level of independence, and obtaining support for their preferences about their dying course and letting go. For example, we (McCorkle et al.)14 conducted a randomized clinical trial with three intervention arms testing the effect of a specialized oncology home care and usual office care on the QOL and level of dependency of individuals with progressive lung cancer. In the specialized oncology home care intervention, oncology advanced practice nurses (APNs) counseled and prescribed care around symptoms, physical function, emotional needs, and psychosocial needs. APNs also taught patients and families to manage aspects of their physical, emotional, and social concerns. We found that even in the context of advancing disease, patients in the specialized oncology home care intervention had less distress (p=.03) and greater independence (p=.02) than participants in the usual care group.

Rummans et al.24 implemented a structured multidisciplinary intervention targeting five QOL domains (cognitive, emotional, physical, social and spiritual) with advanced cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Intervention sessions addressed components of SM, including goal-setting, taking charge, problem-solving, redirecting negative thoughts, building interpersonal relationships, and managing emotional and spiritual responses. Even in the context of advanced cancer, the intervention patients reported stable QOL outcomes by four weeks in comparison to control group patients who experienced a significant decline in QOL at week four (p=.046). Further, participants in the intervention group reported similar QOL scores at follow-up six months later (p=.992).24

For newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients living in a rural setting, Project ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) 25 was implemented in order to test the effects of an APN intervention on QOL, symptom intensity, depression, and use of health care services. The intervention included SM and patient empowerment, with the APN serving as coach and educator. In these roles the APN facilitated problem-solving around symptoms and treatment decisions and helped patients to communicate with their health care team. Results of this study demonstrated higher QOL outcomes (p=.02), lower depressive symptoms (p.02), but limited decrease in symptom-intensity scores (p=.06) and health care service use (p=.14, days in the hospital, p=.53 for ER visits) on the part of intervention patients.

This systematic review suggests that SM interventions among cancer patients positively affect symptom distress, uncertainty, problem-solving, communication, and general QOL domains, and potentially survival. These interventions, however, depend on oncology practices organizing themselves and functioning in a way that supports patients and families in their SM efforts.

A variety of interventions and changes to the organization and functioning of medical practice have proven to help patients meet their needs and to improve care and outcomes across chronic diseases26-29. Based on this evidence, we (Wagner) developed the Chronic Care Model in the 1990s to help medical practices improve the quality of their care to patients with chronic illness30. We discuss this model so that oncology practices may understand the components necessary to support SM interventions.

The Chronic Care Model (CCM)

The CCM includes the features of a health care system that encourage high-quality care. These features fall into six components: SM support, delivery system design, decision support, clinical information systems, health care organization, and community resources31,32. When put together, they limn the contours of productive interactions between informed, activated patients on the one hand, and well-prepared, proactive practice teams on the other.

Productive interactions

Patients' SM needs are met through productive interactions between patients and families and their practice team. By “productive” we mean that patients' needs and goals are systematically and consistently addressed to develop mutually determined care plans. Productive interactions are more likely to occur when patients actively participate and are invested in their own care and are competent, confident managers of their health and illness. To be competent and confident managers, patients must have the relevant information and skills to set priorities and manage their illness.

Enabled and empowered patients

Patients who have the relevant information, skills, and the confidence to engage in SM interventions are enabled33. Interventions that encourage patients to be involved in their own care enable patients. Such enabling interventions are those through which collaboratively patients and providers identify goals that are important to patients, develop realistic action plans to meet those goals, and identify aspects of the plans that patients can self-manage.

Patients whose concerns, priorities and resources are considered important enough to be included in the plan of care are empowered34. Time-limited courses facilitated by peer or professional leaders and focused on empowering patients to manage their own illness have been shown to improve disease control35,36. However, sustained support focused on assisting patients in managing their own illnesses may be optimal37. Such support is most efficiently provided in the context of ongoing chronic-illness care.

Ongoing advice and encouragement from the practice team are important in order to enable and empower patients. Yet many clinicians have neither the time nor the expertise necessary to train and counsel patients effectively. In cancer care, several randomized trials have demonstrated that clinicians with good communication skills and additional training in counseling methods, methods such Motivational Interviewing (MI) or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), perform these functions well16,17. More recent evidence suggests that individuals with limited clinical training can also be trained to provide the support necessary to enable and empower patients to participate in SM38.

Another way to enable and empower patients is to use community-based programs and organizations, which often most effectively meet many of the needs of chronically ill patients. Such needs include: transportation, homemaker services, smoking cessation, exercise, weight control, peer support, caregiver support and respite care, self-management training, financial counseling and assistance. Many clinical practices, however, do not have enough time and information to assist patients with such services. For commonly needed services, practices should at least have the information necessary to advise patients on best options, and to make referrals to and initiate connections with other service providers. For critical services, practices might consider developing partnerships with community-based organizations that can access for patients the services that will be of value to them.

Enabled and empowered patients—patients with the skills, information, and community-based resources necessary to tackle problems related to the care of their chronic illness—are partners in productive interactions. They are not alone, however. The other partners are the primary practice teams.

Proactive and prepared practice teams

Practice teams must be prepared and proactive if they are going to see major improvements in chronic illness performance measures. Prepared practice teams integrate evidence-based reminders into the flow of clinical decision-making. They review key patient information before visits and review patients' goals during visits to determine what services are needed and to develop mutually determined care plans. They use clear task assignments and standing orders to ensure the delivery of those services, and they have the necessary trained staff.

Effective chronic-care management also depends on careful and proactive follow-up by practice teams—follow-up tailored to each patient's disease severity and preferences. Chronically ill patients at higher risk of emergency room use, hospitalization, or major complications have been shown to benefit from more intensive follow-up and clinical management by a care manager. Clinical care management, generally provided by a health care professional such as a nurse or clinical pharmacist, includes clinical assessment, medication management, self-management support, and care coordination28,39-44, including among post-surgical cancer patients14,15,45.

Efforts to improve cancer care must address the realities of the fragmentation of care—that is, of not knowing just which provider is accountable for the whole picture of what is often complex treatment. The disease itself may increase patients' distress, but this fragmentation of care adds to it. Therefore, efforts to improve cancer care must address the quality and the coordination of all the medical practices and providers involved in patients' care. The CCM is a model that oncology practices can adopt to address the quality and the coordination of all the medical practices and providers involved in patients' care.

A practice home for patients with cancer

The most effective cancer care requires a practice home for each patient. This home is the one practice team that holds itself accountable to patients; it is the practice team that takes on the responsibility of guiding and supporting patients along the cancer-care continuum, a continuum that is not straight, but rather, labyrinthine. While this labyrinth begins with diagnosis, its circuitous path leads from staging to treatment planning, from treatment planning to treatment, and from treatment back to staging; if staging suggests progression, the path leads back to treatment planning again. Patients walk along this circular labyrinth as survivors. Given this complexity, the linear sharing of information across providers or the mere holding of tumor boards will unlikely satisfy patients' needs. The CCM's notion of a practice home, however, offers a model to facilitate centralized, consistent care.

The CCM's notion of a practice home may, at first glance, give the impression that primary care providers PCPs must be the practice home of cancer patients. While it is true that PCPs must play a major role in coordinating care, PCPs often feel as if they do not have enough information to answer cancer patients' questions. Oncology providers can serve as the practice home—if patients were referred to oncology immediately upon suspicion or diagnosis. Through coordination of care with PCPs, oncology providers can ensure that patients' general preventative needs are met and co-morbid conditions well-managed. A care manager or coach that links PCPs and oncology providers can help patients navigate the early phases of care, and provide information, skills training, emotional support, among other services. This care manager (a patient champion, as it were) ensures optimal care on patients' journey along the twists and turns of the cancer-care continuum. This champion embodies for patients the cancer care system; as such, this champion holds him- or herself accountable for a patient's entire journey on the cancer-care continuum.

Collaborative care plans

The task of being patients' champions—of being, that is, their practice home—may seem impossible. It is not. Developing and maintaining care plans make it possible. The 2005 IOM report emphasized the importance of explicit care plans1. Care plans form the bond that holds together the partnership between patients and practice teams, but they must be mutually determined. Care plans developed collaboratively with patients make for informed and enabled patients, and they contribute to better coordination of care. The development of a collaborative care plan should be an integral part of the work of the home practice team, and subsequent providers must continue the process to keep the plan current.

We have expounded upon the CCM and applied it to the problem of providing care to cancer patients, care that involves the complexities and nuances of chronic illnesses. We have suggested that oncology practice teams serve as the practice home for cancer patients. We have also suggested that the CCM's notion of productive interactions holds true between cancer patients and oncology practice teams. Oncology practice teams can enable and empower cancer patients to arrive at multi-disciplinary, collaborative care plans that serve as guides for SM interventions along the cancer-care continuum—for patients and oncology practice teams alike. SM interventions are fundamental to enabling and empowering patients so they can take care of themselves along the cancer-care continuum in the way they prefer. We now highlight current applications of successful SM clinical programs in cancer care in which components of the CCM are used.

Current Applications

For the past 30 years, the Stanford Patient Education Research Center has been developing and evaluating community-based programs for the management of chronic conditions. In the past few years, this work has been expanded specifically to include cancer survivors. Two programs are currently undergoing evaluation, a small group program developed with the Macmillian Trust in the United Kingdom (Cancer Thriving and Surviving Program) and an on-line program developed with the University of Hawaii (Cancer Thriving and Surviving Internet Program).

Content for the Stanford cancer survivors programs is based on information obtained from cancer survivor studies and discussions with survivors themselves. Many of the problems survivors face involve stress, depression, sleeplessness, fear, and lack of skills in making decisions about how to resume a normal-but-changed life. In addition, many survivors must cope with changes in body image or side-effects of treatment, such as incontinence or lymphedema. Finally, cancer often causes changes in relationships with family and friends.

The process of each program is developed specifically to enhance self-efficacy, or patient confidence in their ability to be an activated survivor. The process is built on the Social Learning Theory of Albert Bandura46. Self-efficacy can be enhanced through skills-mastery (operationalized as weekly action plans with feedback), modeling (operationalized by having peer-facilitators help survivors with problem-solving and difficult emotions), reinterpretation of symptoms (operationalized by reframing some common problems such as friends falling away when they learn about the cancer), and social persuasion (operationalized by group members systematically sharing their problems, difficult emotions and celebrations).

In addition, rather than teach one or two topics a week, the Stanford Programs teach four-to-five topics a week with many topics repeated and built on week-after-week. Two peers (cancer survivors themselves) facilitate each program. Facilitators receive several weeks of on-line training. There are currently three ongoing trials of the Internet program. Survivors who are interested in participating in the Internet program can go to https://hawaiisurvivors.stanford.edu.

At Smilow Cancer Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut, we (McCorkle and Ercolano) have begun implementing the Taking Early Action to Manage Self (TEAMS) program to help newly diagnosed patients recover after cancer surgery. The program facilitates patients' communication with their providers across services and settings so they are better informed to manage their symptoms and understand their emotions vis-à-vis what they are experiencing. The TEAMS program is based on a series of evidenced-based studies and is in its early stage of translation. The APN in medical oncology serves as the champion for coordinating patient care and mutually determining the care plan with the patient. The Symptom Toolkit developed by Given and Given is an important resource to assist patients with managing their own symptoms.

Limitations to Establishing SM and the CCN in Cancer Care

A major limitation in establishing SM and the CCM in cancer care heretofore has been the lack of a common language. The development of a language usable across professions and disciplines and understandable by patients and families is a critical and necessary first step to move SM forward.

Another limitation of SM in the context of the cancer-care continuum is the lack of a common set of actions to teach patients and families how to take care of themselves. Expectations for patients and families to manage themselves have outpaced the development of effective SM interventions—interventions that impart the knowledge and skills and facilitate the social networking patients and families require for managing themselves2. Patients and families need to be assessed to determine their willingness to manage their cancer care themselves, including managing treatment schedules, side-effects, emotional turmoil, and family dynamics. It also involves navigating through different specialty groups and interacting with numerous people to schedule diagnostic tests, appointments, and procedures. A common set of SM actions would involve eliciting from patients and families their preferences for their involvement in their care and developing a common set of interventions that enable them to participate in accordance with their preferences and abilities.

Clinical Implications

This overview has highlighted important scientific advances over the last two decades in applying the CCM and SM interventions to the cancer-care continuum. While unanswered questions remain for future research efforts, oncology practices can now incorporate aspects of the CCM and some SM interventions discussed in this paper. Specifically, oncology practices can recognize the importance of patient-provider partnerships, and they can implement the standard that care plans be developed mutually—with patients and families.

The importance of partnerships

In order for SM interventions to become an essential component of quality cancer care, the partnerships inherent in the CCM must be formed among providers, patients, and families. See Figure 1 to view how patient-provider productive interactions may be facilitated through partnerships that support patients to manage themselves and to accomplish their goals. The delivery of quality cancer care is dependent on productive interactions between patients and providers. All of the studies in Table 1 included interventions for improving communication with health care providers; for example, managing symptoms, expressing feelings, asking questions, and requesting help. In particular, there are many more challenges in the oncology setting given the number of specialties that have to be organized and integrated into the care. These specialties may change as patients progress along the cancer-care continuum. While further exploration of what productive interactions in the cancer-care setting look like is warranted, oncology practices can lead the way by forging strong patient-provider relationships and becoming the practice home for patients in their care.

Figure 1
Self-Management Cycle in the Chronic Care Model

Development of mutually determined care plans

The phase of the cancer-care continuum sets the context for individuals' preferences for how to manage their own care. It is assumed that most people want to take care of themselves and remain independent, but these preferences may change over time. SM involves daily behaviors that individuals and their families perform to manage their cancer and their treatment, including short and long-term effects of both. These daily behaviors may change; for depending upon where patients are on the cancer-care continuum, the cancer treatment they undergo, their symptoms, their personal goals, and their ability to take care of themselves may also change. Our review of the research to date suggests that SM is critical across all the phases of the cancer-care continuum. However, SM may be more challenging at some phases compared to others. The demands patients experience within a particular phase may influence their level of participation in SM interventions. Patients may become more passive during active, aggressive treatment due to being physically or emotionally overwhelmed; whereas during the post-treatment phase they may feel better physically and may want to manage the demands associated with their cancer treatment and surveillance schedule independently. Degner and colleagues47,48 have successfully determined patients' preferences to participate in the decision-making related to treatment options. While a similar approach might be useful with patients to determine how much responsibility they want for their own care within each phase of the cancer-care continuum, from our review of the literature, we feel confident that oncology practices should engage patients and families in formulating a mutually-agreed upon plan of care. This plan of care needs to be revisited as patients enter into different phases of the cancer-care continuum.

Conclusion

Research related to SM interventions in cancer care has increased over the last decade. Significant progress has been made in helping patients manage the symptoms associated with cancer during the treatment phase of the cancer-care continuum. SM interventions have been part of this progress, including interventions that have focused on SM of physical symptoms and psychosocial distress. There is an urgent need to translate this scientific evidence into clinical practice. Fewer studies have assessed the utility and benefit of SM interventions during the post-treatment and end-of-life phases of the continuum. The studies that have been conducted, however, suggest that the phase of the cancer-care continuum sets the context for patients' and families' preferences for how to manage their own care. We have suggested here that by adopting the CCM, oncology practice teams can become practice homes for their patients. In these homes, proactive oncology practice teams can use the SM interventions we have described above to enable and empower patients and families to care for themselves across the cancer-care continuum in the way they prefer.

Text Box 1

Common Set of Needs Among People with Chronic Illness (Wagner, Austin & Von Korff (1996).

  • Effective clinical, behavioral, and supportive treatment,
  • Information and support to help patients become competent managers of their own health and illness,
  • Systematic follow-up and monitoring tailored to clinical severity, including more intensive management of high-need patients,
  • Coordination of care across settings and professionals.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Schulman-Green is supported by the American Cancer Society (MRSG08-292-01-CPPB, D. Schulman-Green, PI).

Contributor Information

Ruth McCorkle, School of Nursing, Yale University.

Elizabeth Ercolano, Schools of Nursing and Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University.

Mark Lazenby, School of Nursing, Yale University.

Dena Schulman-Green, School of Nursing, Yale University.

Lynne S. Schilling, School of Nursing, Yale University.

Kate Lorig, Professor, Stanford University.

Edward H. Wagner, McColl Institute for Healthcare Innovation Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative.

References

1. Hewitt ME, Greenfield S, Stovall E, National Cancer Policy Board . From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005. Committee on Cancer Survivorship: Improving Care and Quality of Life; p. 506. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0518/2005024963.html.
2. Ryan P, Sawin KJ. The Individual and Family Self-Management Theory: background and perspectives on context, process, and outcomes. Nurs Outlook. 2009;57(4):217–225.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.10.004. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: A review. Patient Education and Counseling. 2002;48(2):177–187. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991%2802%2900032-0. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
4. Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26(1):1–7. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2601_01. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Corbin J, Stauss A. Understanding work and care: Managing chronic illness at home. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1988.
6. Adams K, Greiner AC, Corrigan JM, editors. Report of a summit The 1st annual crossing the quality chasm summit- A focus on communities. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press; 2004.
7. Dunbar SB, Clark PC, Quinn C, Gary RA, Kaslow NJ. Family influences on heart failure self-care and outcomes. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008;23(3):258–265. doi: 10.1097/01.JCN.0000305093.20012.b8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Grey M, Knafl K, McCorkle R. A framework for the study of self- and family management of chronic conditions. Nurs Outlook. 2006;54(5):278–286. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2006.06.004. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. Adams K, Corrigan JM, editors. Institute of Medicine: Priority areas for national action: Transforming health care quality. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press; 2003.
10. Dodd MJ, Miaskowski C. The PRO-SELF Program: a self-care intervention program for patients receiving cancer treatment. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2000;16(4):300–8. doi: 10.1053/sonu.2000.16586. discussion 308-16. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
11. Miaskowski C, Dodd M, West C, et al. Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of a self-care intervention to improve cancer pain management. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(9):1713–1720. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.140. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
12. Braden CJ, Mishel MH, Longman AJ. Self-Help Intervention Project. Women receiving breast cancer treatment. Cancer Pract. 1998;6(2):87–98. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-5394.1998.1998006087.x. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Badger TA, Braden CJ, Mishel MH. Depression burden, self-help interventions, and side effect experience in women receiving treatment for breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001;28(3):567–574. [PubMed]
14. McCorkle R, Benoliel JQ, Donaldson G, Georgiadou F, Moinpour C, Goodell B. A randomized clinical trial of home nursing care for lung cancer patients. Cancer. 1989;64:1375–1382. doi: 10.1016/0169-5002(90)90382-V. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
15. McCorkle R, Strumpf NE, Nuamah IF, et al. A specialized home care intervention improves survival among older post-surgical cancer patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12):1707–1713. [PubMed]
16. Given C, Given B, Rahbar M, et al. Effect of a cognitive behavioral intervention on reducing symptom severity during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(3):507–516. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.01.241. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
17. Sikorskii A, Given CW, Given B, et al. Symptom management for cancer patients: a trial comparing two multimodal interventions. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2007;34(3):253–264. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.11.018. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
18. Lewis FM, Casey SM, Brandt PA, Shands ME, Zahlis EH. The enhancing connections program: pilot study of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for mothers and children affected by breast cancer. Psychooncology. 2006;15(6):486–497. doi: 10.1002/pon.979. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
19. Northouse L, Kershaw T, Mood D, Schafenacker A. Effects of a family intervention on the quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family caregivers. Psychooncology. 2005;14(6):478–491. doi: 10.1002/pon.871. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
20. Ganz PA, Kwan L, Stanton AL, et al. Quality of life at the end of primary treatment of breast cancer: first results from the moving beyond cancer randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(5):376–387. doi: 10.1016/S1043-321X(05)80256-5. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
21. Stanton AL, Ganz PA, Kwan L, et al. Outcomes from the Moving Beyond Cancer psychoeducational, randomized, controlled trial with breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(25):6009–6018. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.101. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. Cimprich B, Janz NK, Northouse L, Wren PA, Given B, Given CW. Taking CHARGE: A self-management program for women following breast cancer treatment. Psychooncology. 2005;14(9):704–717. doi: 10.1002/pon.891. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
23. Damush TM, Perkins A, Miller K. The implementation of an oncologist referred, exercise self-management program for older breast cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2006;15(10):884–890. doi: 10.1002/pon.1020. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
24. Rummans TA, Clark MM, Sloan JA, et al. Impacting quality of life for patients with advanced cancer with a structured multidisciplinary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):635–642. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.209. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
25. Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, et al. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(7):741–749. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1198. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
26. Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin S, Wagner EH, Eijk JT, Assendelft WJ. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2002;1(CD001481) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001481. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
27. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, Part 2. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;288(15):1909–1914. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.15.1909. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
28. Shojania KG, Ranji SR, McDonald KM, et al. Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2006;296(4):427–440. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.4.427. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
29. Tsai AC, Morton SC, Mangione CM, Keeler EB. A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illnesses. Am J Manag Care. 2005;11(8):478–488. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract. 1998;1(1):2–4. [PubMed]
31. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A. Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001;20(6):64–78. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.20.6.64. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
32. Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, Wagner EH. Evidence on the Chronic Care Model in the new millennium. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28(1):75–85. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.75. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
33. Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stock R, Tusler M. Do increases in patient activation result in improved self-management behaviors? Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1443–1463. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00669.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
34. Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57(2):153–157. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.05.008. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
35. Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Homan H, Grumbach K. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;288(19):2469–2475. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.19.2469. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
36. Chodosh J, Morton SC, Mojica W, et al. Meta-analysis: Chronic disease self-management programs for older adults. Annuls of Internal Medicine. 2005;143(6):427–438. doi: 10.1007/BF03071164. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
37. Norris SL, Lau J, Smith SJ, Schmid CH, Engelgau MM. Self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of the effect on glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(7):1159–1171. doi: 10.2337/diacare.25.7.1159. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
38. Bodenheimer T, Laing BY. The teamlet model of primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(5):457–461. doi: 10.1370/afm.731. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
39. Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min SJ. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1822–1828. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.17.1822. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
40. Naylor MD. Transitional care for older adults: a cost-effective model. LDI Issue Brief. 2004;9(6):1–4. [PubMed]
41. Phillips CO, Wright SM, Kern DE, Singa RM, Shepperd S, Rubin HR. Comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;291(11):1358–1367. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.11.1358. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
42. Boyd CM, Reider L, Frey K, et al. The effects of guided care on the perceived quality of health care for multi-morbid older persons: 18-month outcomes from a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(3):235–242. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1192-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
43. Gensichen J, von Korff M, Peitz M, et al. Case management for depression by health care assistants in small primary care practices: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(6):369–378. [PubMed]
44. Landis SE, Gaynes BN, Morrissey JP, Vinson N, Ellis AR, Domino ME. Generalist care managers for the treatment of depressed medicaid patients in North Carolina: A pilot study. British Medical Care Family Practice. 2007;8(7) doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
45. McCorkle R, Jepson C, Malone D, et al. The impact of posthospital home care on patients with cancer. Res Nurs Health. 1994;17(4):243–251. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770170403. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
46. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1997. p. 604.
47. Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 1997;277(18):1485–1492. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.18.1485. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
48. Degner LF, Sloan JA. Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play? J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(9):941–950. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90110-9. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
PubReader format: click here to try

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...