Cancer patients' preferences of care within hospitals: a systematic literature review

Petersen, Gitte Stentebjerg; Knudsen, Janne Lehmann; Vinter, Mette Marianne

doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzv059

Cited by 36 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with international reviews, quality of care was important to both rural and urban participants (Petersen, Knudsen, & Vinter, 2015;Victoor et al, 2012). Despite this, this study suggests that although some patients sought information about potential providers through online or personal contacts, most relied on advice from their referring clinician regarding the quality of specialists or services referred to.…”

Section: Quality Of Care and Trustmentioning

confidence: 59%

How rural and urban patients in Australia with colorectal or breast cancer experience choice of treatment provider: A qualitative study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern healthcare systems promote patient choice of cancer treatment provider, but little is known about how place of residence influences decision-making. This research explored how rural and urban patients with breast or colorectal cancer experience choice of cancer treatment provider in Victoria, Australia. Realist thematic analysis of 43 semi-structured telephone interviews identified little active participation in decision-making regardless of area of residence or cancer diagnosis. Perceptions of choice were impacted by urgency for treatment, insurance status and access to providers, a key issue for rural patients. All patients wanted high quality care, but needed to trust health professional's recommendations. Rural patients experienced more complex decision-making, balancing a range of social factors with perceptions about quality of accessible care. Further research into variation in quality of care and complex cancer pathways for rural and urban cancer patients is warranted to inform choices and enhance patient-centred care.

show abstract

Section: Quality Of Care and Trustmentioning

confidence: 59%

How rural and urban patients in Australia with colorectal or breast cancer experience choice of treatment provider: A qualitative study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The item addressing the involvement of the family or a close person in the patient's care was also rated by some patients as being less relevant. However, we decided to retain this item because the feedback received by patients was not consistent across settings or countries, and because there is evidence from a larger study involving cancer patients from various cultural backgrounds that for the majority family members are involved in patient care (Hobbs et al., ; Petersen, Knudsen, & Vinter, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire (EORTC PATSAT-C33) and specific complementary outpatient module (EORTC OUT-PATSAT7)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in cancer care delivery require revision and further development of questionnaires assessing patients’ perceived quality of care. This study pre‐tested the revised EORTC satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire applicable in both the cancer inpatient and outpatient settings, and its new, outpatient‐specific complementary module. The process of revision, development of the extended application, and pre‐testing of these questionnaires was based on phases I to III of the “EORTC Quality of Life Group Module Development Guidelines.” In phase III, patients in 11 countries in four European regions, South America and Asia completed provisional versions of the questionnaires. Fifty‐seven relevant issues selected from literature reviews and input from experts were operationalized into provisional items, and subsequently translated into ten languages. Assessment of understanding, acceptability, redundancy and relevance by patients (n = 151) from oncology inpatient wards, and outpatient chemotherapy, radiotherapy and consultation settings, led to retention of, deletion of and merging of 40, 14 and 6 items respectively. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for hypothesized questionnaire scales were above 0.80. Our results provide preliminary support for the 33‐item EORTC Satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire and the 7‐item complementary module specific for the outpatient care setting. A large scale phase IV cross‐cultural psychometric study is now underway.

show abstract

“…This could be 1 reason for our institution's diagnosis to treatment time being quite long. Petersen and colleagues 14 showed that diagnosis to first treatment time has correlation with patients' satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Satisfaction of breast cancer patients regarding surgery and radiation therapy: A survey in Japan

Saito

Suda

Sasai

et al. 2016

Advances in Radiation Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo evaluate patient satisfaction in Japan and factors, including timing factors, cost, and specific medical practices derived from Western influence (shared decision-making and second opinion), which might affect satisfaction.Methods and materialsAll patients who presented to 1 large Japanese department of radiation oncology for postoperative radiation therapy for breast cancer from September 2010 to November 2013 were included in this study. The questionnaire was distributed to patients after the radiation oncologist consultation, and patients were asked to complete it anonymously by the end of treatment. We measured patient satisfaction with overall treatment and for each treatment separately (surgery, radiation oncology). We further inquired regarding facts that could affect satisfaction, including time from diagnosis to treatment start, waiting time in waiting room for consultation, average length of consultations, out-of-pocket cost for breast cancer treatment, patients' opinion of the cost, level of inclusion of the patient in decision-making, level of the patient sharing her feelings with her physician, and whether the patients had asked for second opinion.ResultsOf 364 patients surveyed, 214 (58.5%) responded. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with surgeon and with radiation oncologist were 95.7%, 98.5%, and 98.2%, respectively. Factors correlated with satisfaction were waiting time for the consult in the waiting room, treatment cost, and perceived degree of sharing feelings with physicians. Overall, 27 patients (12.6%) reported having asked for second opinions. Of those who did not seek a second opinion, most (173) indicated that they did not think it was necessary.ConclusionsIn a large, typical Japanese radiation oncology practice, breast cancer patients' satisfaction correlated with waiting time, cost, and the rate with which the patient shared her feelings with her physician. This illuminates targets for quality improvement within the Japanese system and provides interesting cross-cultural comparative data for other countries in which the context of care may differ.

show abstract

Cancer patients' preferences of care within hospitals: a systematic literature review

Cited by 36 publications

References 51 publications

How rural and urban patients in Australia with colorectal or breast cancer experience choice of treatment provider: A qualitative study

How rural and urban patients in Australia with colorectal or breast cancer experience choice of treatment provider: A qualitative study

Phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer satisfaction with cancer care core questionnaire (EORTC PATSAT-C33) and specific complementary outpatient module (EORTC OUT-PATSAT7)

Satisfaction of breast cancer patients regarding surgery and radiation therapy: A survey in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About