Cancer patients’ knowledge about their disease and treatment before, during and after treatment: a prospective, longitudinal study

Abstract

BackgroundKnowledge about disease and treatment is necessary before patients can consent to treatment. One of the few established instruments for evaluating whether sufficient information has been provided, is the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire which was developed to measure how patients perceive information. The aim of this study was to investigate whether cancer patients’ level of knowledge about their disease and treatment was associated with their perception of and satisfaction with the information.MethodsBreast cancer patients referred for adjuvant chemotherapy and prostate cancer patients referred for curative radiotherapy were included. Level of knowledge about their disease and treatment was measured using study-specific questionnaires. Patients’ perception of and satisfaction with the received information was assessed using EORTC QLQ-INFO25. Assessments were done before the first consultation with an oncologist (T1), after the consultation (T2) and 8 weeks after start of treatment (T3).ResultsNinety eight patients were enrolled. Patients with higher education, daily Internet access and in paid employment had the highest baseline knowledge scores. The mean knowledge score increased significantly (T1: 16.4; T2: 20.8; T3: 21.3; p < 0.001.). During the same period, the patients reported on the INFO25 a significant, positive increase in how much information they had received, and that they were more satisfied with the information.ConclusionsPatients’ knowledge increased significantly during the study period, and they reported that they felt better informed and were more satisfied with the information, suggesting that EORTC QLQ-INFO25 might be used to evaluate cancer patients’ level of knowledge about their disease and treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01699672. Date of registration: September 21, 2012.

Not all prostate cancer is the same – patient perceptions: an Asia‐Pacific region study

“…The low level of prostate cancer knowledge among patients in this region is comparable with findings from other studies in the USA [17][18][19] and Europe [20][21][22][23]. However, higher levels of prostate cancer knowledge were observed among patients in Taiwan and Australia, both before and after diagnosis, which could be a result of public awareness campaigns.…”

“…This highlights the importance of understanding the current knowledge of prostate cancer among males in order to improve prostate cancer awareness, ensure early diagnosis, and improve HRQoL among patients with prostate cancer in Asia. Studies have previously investigated perceptions [13][14][15][16] and knowledge of prostate cancer in men from the USA [17][18][19] and Europe [20][21][22][23]. Limited studies have been performed in Japan [24,25] and Korea [26]; however, little such research has been done in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region as a whole.…”

Nouveaux concepts de consultations médicales en oncologie

“…Une cohorte de 142 patientes a été randomisée en aveugle et en 1 pour 1 pour recevoir d’une part les réponses du chatbot (groupe 1) et d’autre part les réponses du comité pluridisciplinaire de médecins (groupe 2) à 12 questions fréquemment posées sur le cancer du sein. Chaque patiente devait ensuite répondre au questionnaire QLQ-INFO25 de l’ European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), évaluant la qualité de l’information médicale [21] , [22] , [23] . Le taux de satisfaction (score > 3) était de 69 % dans le bras chatbot contre 64 % dans le bras médecin ( p < 10 −14 ).…”

Disease Progression in Multiple Sclerosis: A Literature Review Exploring Patient Perspectives

“…42 In a prospective longitudinal survey from Norway, providing cancer patients with satisfactory information improved the patients’ knowledge about their disease and its treatment. 43 A study from the Czech Republic of the impact of information provision and delivery on patients with progressive neurological disease (including MS, Parkinson’s and atypical Parkinson’s disease, and Huntington’s disease) employed in-depth interviews with 20 participants (patients, family members, professionals). Participants often felt that the information provided and the delivery of this information were inadequate, especially regarding disease transitions and progression.…”