Authors’ Reply: Equity-Centered Optimization of Virtual Cancer Survivorship Care
Jacqueline L Bender, Sarah Scruton, Geoff Wong, Stephanie Babinski, Lauren R Squires, Alejandro Berlin, Julie Easley, Sharon McGee, Ken Noel, Danielle Rodin, Jonathan Sussman, Robin Urquhart

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation · Cancer survivorship and care · Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
We thank Bhatti and Bhatti [1] for their positive feedback and agree with their recommendations to incorporate policy-level contextual factors in future iterations of the virtual follow-up (VFU) program theory.
Participants’ discussion of systemic and structural factors influencing VFU use was limited, likely due to the sociodemographic makeup of the sample [2]. Although we purposively selected for and achieved diversity in race, ethnicity, country of origin, spoken language, and gender, most participants were highly educated, activated patients living in high-income households. Hence, we acknowledged that the findings may not represent the perspectives of less activated, less educated patients who may have lower health literacy, are less involved in their care, and face more challenges with accessing virtual care. Thus, we concluded that further research is needed to better understand how VFU could be optimized for individuals who face systemic and structural barriers to care. We agree that this would involve tailored and targeted strategies for recruiting structurally marginalized individuals to test context-mechanism-outcome configurations in varied contexts.
Despite their higher socioeconomic status, participants emphasized the critical importance of ensuring that VFU technology is accessible, easy to use, and reliable [2]. We agree that key policy-level strategies for overcoming these structural barriers to VFU include equitable VFU reimbursement structures for health care professionals and reliable and affordable broadband access for patients. As we explained in the paper, telephone visits must be sustained to bridge the digital divide, along with changes to physician reimbursement structures to ensure equitable compensation for such visits. In parallel, as Bender et al [3] stated in a prior article where they demonstrated the critical importance of broadband as a determinant of health-related internet use, we believe that reliable and affordable broadband must be a priority. Not having broadband considerably limits one’s internet quality and access to essential services, leading some researchers to suggest that broadband access is a social determinant of health [4]. In 2020, the Government of Canada invested CAD 2.3 billion) to provide all Canadians with high-speed internet and mobile cellular access by 2030. Future work should assess the impact of this policy on VFU.
It was encouraging to learn that newer studies are also advocating for empathy training in telehealth curricula to optimize VFU for patients [5]. We agree that telehealth training should be guided by antiracist, decolonial, and trauma-informed frameworks to address disparities in emotional support quality during VFU. However, we recommend equity, diversity, and inclusion training for recognizing and addressing unconscious bias, communicating empathy, and promoting cultural safety in a manner tailored to each visit type, given that structurally marginalized patients are less satisfied with their care regardless of visit type [6].
In summary, we thank Bhatti and Bhatti [1] for their timely recommendations on strengthening equity-centered implementation of telehealth in survivorship care. This constructive feedback will be incorporated into a joint Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) update of the ASCO Telehealth in Oncology Standards, which will include considerations for resource-constrained settings [7].
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Bhatti AMUR Bhatti M Equity-centered optimization of virtual cancer survivorship care J Med Internet Res 202527 e 73663 doi 10.2196/7366340795330 PMC 12342685 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Scruton S Wong G Babinski S et al Optimizing virtual follow-up care: realist evaluation of experiences and perspectives of patients with breast and prostate cancer J Med Internet Res 013202527 e 65148 doi 10.2196/65148 Medline 39752659 PMC 11748426 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Bender JL Feldman-Stewart D Tong C et al Health-related internet use among men with prostate cancer in Canada: cancer registry survey study J Med Internet Res Nov 1920192111 e 14241 doi 10.2196/14241 Medline 31742561 PMC 6891399 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Benda NC Veinot TC Sieck CJ Ancker JS Broadband internet access is a social determinant of health!Am J Public Health Aug 2020110811231125 doi 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305784 Medline 32639914 PMC 7349425 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Shaffer KM Turner KL Siwik C et al Digital health and telehealth in cancer care: a scoping review of reviews Lancet Digit Health 05202355 e 316e 327doi 10.1016/S 2589-7500(23)00049-3Medline 37100545 PMC 10124999 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 6Safavi AH Lovas M Liu ZA et al Virtual care and electronic patient communication during COVID-19: cross-sectional study of inequities across a Canadian tertiary cancer center J Med Internet Res Nov 420222411 e 39728 doi 10.2196/39728 Medline 36331536 PMC 9640204 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 7Van Sebille Y Wishart LR Bender JL Standards and practice recommendations for Telehealth in Oncology: MASCC endorsed practice recommendations developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Support Care Cancer Aug 22025338743 doi 10.1007/s 00520-025-09808-9Medline 40751814 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
