Attitudes towards second opinion services in cancer care: a nationwide survey of oncologists in Korea

Abstract

Objective: Second opinion is a common phenomenon in many health systems, especially in the care of patients with cancer. However, it is not clear whether second opinion seeking should be promoted or discouraged and how second opinion services and policies can be better formalized to maximize the benefits and minimize the disadvantages. Methods: A nationwide survey was conducted with a representative sample of 678 physicians involved in cancer care (75.5% participation rate) recruited in 13 cancer centres. Results: Most physicians involved with cancer care perceived patients' second opinion seeking as a legitimate right (96.0%) and they acknowledged the need for second opinion services under certain conditions (98.2%). Many believed that second opinions can enhance patient satisfaction (77.3%) and quality of care (74.3%), but they also had concerns about increase in healthcare and societal costs (91.3%) and concentration in a high-volume centre (90.7%). While the majority agreed with the involvement of the first opinion physicians in the second opinion services (69.5%), there were mixed opinions regarding the desirability of remote (teleconsultation) second opinion services (49.0%) and coverage by national health insurance (51.9%). Conclusion: Physicians were generally positive to second opinion services and expected positive consequences in terms of patient satisfaction and quality of care. However, they had concerns about the consequences regarding cost and equity, and disagreements were observed regarding the way to improve second opinion services. The physicians' opinions revealed in our study will be helpful in developing clearer guidelines used to maximize the benefits of second opinion services.

The role of patients’ families in treatment decision-making among adult cancer patients in the Sultanate of Oman

“…Previous studies conducted in Oman showed that women who were diagnosed with breast cancer decided to travel abroad to reconfirm their diagnosis and to seek other cancer treatment modalities or to avoid “cancer stigma” at home, as this would provide them with an opportunity to be away from the people they knew (Al‐Azri, Al‐Awisi, & Al‐Moundhri, ; Al‐Azri et al., ). However, there was a possibility that the patients could be started on the wrong cancer treatments and the longer they stayed abroad, the higher the cost of treatment which the patients, or their family members, cannot afford, hence many of them return to Oman (Shin et al., ).…”

Barriers in quest for cancer care access in two states of northeast India

“…Yet, evidence from this study suggests treatment delays and loss to follow up are due to costs incurred by services not covered under the government insurance, such as laboratory investigation, accommodation or transportation. Issues in the treatment journey to forgo chemotherapy or radiation concur with existing literature 7,23,24 . People from urban areas, higher‐income tertiles, non‐ST/SC and Hindu, are more likely to utilise private facilities for outpatient and hospitalisation care 7,25,26 …”

“…Issues in the treatment journey to forgo chemotherapy or radiation concur with existing literature. 7,23,24 People from urban areas, higher-income tertiles, non-ST/SC and Hindu, are more likely to utilise private facilities for outpatient and hospitalisation care. 7,25,26 This study findings indicate that sectoral choices are influenced by established brands of private hospitals for cancer, testimonials or recommendations from family, relatives or friends, had paying capacity and long-distance travel time to reach the state cancer institute.…”