Objectives: Aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of breast cancer patients who participated in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs). Study design: Data from two consecutive years of an annual postal survey of patients with primary breast cancer were combined. Data was collected between February and July 2015 (response rate 72%) and 2016 (response rate 73%) from N ¼ 8893 patients (ICD-10 C50) after hospital discharge from 86 breast cancer center hospitals in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The study used a mixed-methods design. Standardized quantitative survey questions were analyzed descriptively and an open-ended question was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results: Around 9% of the patients were invited to participate in a multidisciplinary tumor conference (MTC) and 49% of the invited patients reported actual participation in a MTC. Approximately 87% of those patients did not regret their participation in the MTC. The qualitative analysis from the open-ended question indicated that MTC participation was perceived by patients as being both supportive and informative (n ¼ 109 expressions). However, some patients reported difficult experiences and emotional reactions during and after participation (n ¼ 37 expressions). Altogether, the patients' perception was divided into positive and negative, cognitive and emotional experiences following participation in a MTC. Conclusion:The perception of the MTCs varies between the participating patients. Further research on advantages and disadvantages for patients and particularly on the feasibility from the provider's perspective is necessary.

Background Decisions made in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTC) that consider patient preferences result in better patient outcomes. Furthermore, it has been shown that in some breast cancer centers in Germany, patients participate in MTCs and that participation is associated with sociodemographic and breast cancer center-related factors. Health literacy (HL) has been shown to be predictive for individual health behavior and is an important prerequisite for patient participation in healthcare. However, so far nothing is known about the association between HL and MTC patient participation. To close this gap in research, we analyzed which patient characteristics affect participation in MTCs and whether participation varies between breast cancer centers. Methods In a prospective, multicenter cohort study, newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were surveyed directly after surgery (T1) as well as 10 weeks (T2) and 40 weeks (T3) after surgery. After descriptive analysis, t-tests were conducted, correlations for independent variables were run, and logistic multilevel regression analysis was applied to estimate the association between patient participation in MTCs at T1 and HL (HLS-EU-Q16 [1]), sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics ( n = 863 patients) and the variation between breast cancer centers ( n = 43 centers). Results Descriptive results show that 6.8% of breast cancer patients took part in a MTC. The logistic multilevel regression model revealed that patients with an inadequately HL are less likely to participate in MTCs (OR = 0.31, 95%-CI = 0.1–0.9, Pseudo-R 2 = 0.06), and participation is dependent on the breast cancer center (ICC = 0.161). Conclusions These findings are the first to show significant differences in HL and patient participation in MTCs in a large sample of breast cancer patients. In future research on patient participation in MTCs and HL, questions concerning the organization, communication and decision-making in MTCs with and without patient participation have to be addressed, and patient and provider perspectives must be equally considered. Trial registration Database Health Services Research, VfD_PIAT_12_001630 , registered prospectively on 01.03.2012.

BackgroundReturn to work (RTW) is a key parameter of outcome quality that ensures social participation. Therefore, this study analyses the sociodemographic and disease-related determinants of RTW among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.MethodsIn a prospective, multicentre cohort study, breast cancer patients were surveyed three times: directly after surgery, after 10 weeks, and after 40 weeks. Logistic regression analysis was applied to estimate the association of RTW at 40 weeks following discharge with sociodemographic and disease-related characteristics (n = 577).ResultsThe sociodemographic variables “entrance certificate at a university of applied science” compared to “university entrance certificate” (OR = 3.1, 95%-CI = 1.2–8.1), age group “55–59 years” compared to “18–44 years” (OR = 3.2, 95%-CI = 1.2–8.4) and “having children” (OR = 2.8, 95%-CI = 1.2–6.2) as well as the disease-related variables “rehabilitation” (OR = 0.5, 95%-CI = 0.3–0.9), self-rated health “good” and “excellent” compared to “bad” (OR = 2.7, 95%-CI = 1.4–5.5; OR = 11.6, 95%-CI = 4.2–31.8) and the UICC-classification “stage II” and “stage III/IV” in comparison to “stage 0/I” (OR = 0.5, 95%-CI = 0.3–0.8; OR = 0.2, 95%-CI = 0.1–0.5) significantly affect RTW among breast cancer patients (Nagelkerke’s Pseudo-R2 = 0.275).ConclusionsThe findings show that significant differences in RTW exist between patient groups and suggest that RTW issues must be addressed more effectively before, during and after treatment. For future research on RTW in Germany, longitudinal studies with a follow-up of several years are necessary. Information and support deficits should be tackled by social services or breast care nurses.Trial registrationDatabase Health Services Research, VfD_PIAT_12_001630, registered 01.03.2012Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3768-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Zusammenfassung Ziel der Studie Bislang mangelt es an Wissen zur Situation der Versorgungsforschung an deutschen Universitäten, Hochschulen und Fachhochschulen. Daher ist es das Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchung, eine erste Bestandsaufnahme zu Versorgungsforschungsstrukturen im Bereich Lehre und Forschung zu liefern. Methodik Es wurde von Februar bis April 2017 eine Online-Befragung deutscher Versorgungsforschungs-Hochschullehrer durchgeführt. Die Befragung enthielt 25 offene und geschlossene faktische Fragen. Die quantitativen Antworten wurden deskriptiv mit IBM SPSS Statistics 24 analysiert. Die offenen Fragen wurden qualitativ inhaltsanalytisch ausgewertet. Ergebnisse N=42 Hochschullehrer nahmen teil (Rücklauf 97,6%). Die Versorgungsforschung wird im Studiengang Humanmedizin sowie in gesundheitswissenschaftlichen Studiengängen unterrichtet. Spezifische Studiengänge der Versorgungsforschung konnten an 3 Standorten ausgemacht werden. Die Promotions- und Habilitationsmöglichkeiten im Fach Versorgungsforschung sind heterogen. Im Bereich der Forschungsmethoden dominieren quantitative Methoden, insbesondere Patient Reported Outcome-Forschung mit Primärdaten. Die häufigsten theoretischen Kooperationsfächer sind die Biometrie/Epidemiologie und die Gesundheitsökonomie. Schlussfolgerung Neben der Ausbildung in den Bezugsdisziplinen existiert ein weitergehender Fortbildungsbedarf für Versorgungsforscher in spezifischer Terminologie, Rahmenmodellen, Datenquellen und -auswertungsmethoden, Datenschutzaspekten und gesundheitspolitischen Aspekten. Neben der Ausbildung der Versorgungsforscher gilt es, die Promotions- und Habilitationsmöglichkeiten im Fach Versorgungsforschung an den Fakultäten zu verbessern, um den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs in der Versorgungsforschung weiter zu fördern.

Objective: Recent studies from Germany show that a small amount of breast and gynecological cancer patients participate in multidisciplinary tumor conferences (MTCs) at some cancer centers. One reason for the variation by center might be the providers' attitudes about and experiences with MTC patient participation (MTCpp), which has not been analyzed before. Therefore, it is the aim of this study to analyze the providers' expected or experienced feasibility concerning MTCpp at breast and gynecological cancer centers in Germany. Methods: This paper presents cross-sectional qualitative interview data from the PINTU study. From April to December 2018, n=30 health-care providers from n=6 breast and gynecological cancer centers in North-Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, were interviewed. Onehalf of the providers had no experience and the other half had experience with MTCpp. Inductive and deductive coding was performed in order to capture the feasibility aspects of participation. Results: MTCpp seems not to be feasible in routine cancer care following providers' expected barriers and negative experiences. However, MTCpp seems to be feasible for selected cancer patients following providers' expected opportunities and positive experiences. Our results show that both provider groups report positive and negative experiences or expectations. Conclusion: The mixed findings regarding expected or experienced feasibility of MTCpp provide first insights into differences concerning MTCpp between organizations. Our results suggest that the providers' perceptions (expectations and experiences) influence the possibility for patients to participate in an MTC in a cancer center.

No abstract

IntroductionA central instrument of multidisciplinary care is the multidisciplinary tumour conference (MTC). In MTCs, diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients are discussed, and therapy recommendations are worked out. As we found previously, patients participate in MTCs in some breast cancer centres in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. However, studies on risks and benefits of patient participation have not provided substantiated findings. Therefore, the study’s objective is to analyse differences between MTCs with and without patient participation.Methods and analysisThis is an exploratory mixed-methods study. MTCs in six breast and gynaecological cancer centres in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, are examined. MTCs will be conducted with and without patient participation. First, interviews with providers concentrating on the feasibility of patient participation and quality of decision-making will be carried out, transcribed and analysed by means of content analysis. Second, videotaped or audiotaped participatory observations in MTCs will be executed. Video data or transcribed audio data from video and audio recordings will be coded using the established "Observational Assessment Rating Scale" for MTCs and analysed by comparing centres with and without patient participation. Third, all patients will fill out a questionnaire before and after MTC, including questions on psychosocial situation, decision-making and expectations before and experiences after MTC. The questionnaire data will be analysed by means of descriptive and multivariate statistics and pre-post-differences within and between groups.Ethics and disseminationConsultation and a positive vote from the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne have been obtained. For all collected data, relevant data protection regulations will be adhered to. All personal identifiers from patients and providers will be pseudonymised, except video recordings. Dissemination strategies include a discussion with patients and providers in workshops about topics such as feasibility, risks and benefits of patient participation in MTCs.Trial registration numberDRKS00012552.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.