Was it worth it (WIWI)? An OHSU Knight Cancer Institute retrospective analysis of patient satisfaction following radiotherapy.

Abstract

225 Background: Existing data on patient satisfaction after radiotherapy (RT) is scarce. The specific aim of this analysis is to describe the clinical experience for cancer patients (pts) completing a course of RT at OHSU’s Knight Cancer Institute. Methods: The records of 200 OHSU pts that completed a 5-item “Was It Worth It (WIWI)?” questionnaire highlighting pt satisfaction were reviewed. These data were collected upon the completion of treatment and, if available, first follow-up (f/u). Univariate analysis & logistic regression modeling were performed on pt demographic and treatment characteristics to ascertain predictors of satisfaction. Results: 200 pts (M = 174; F = 26) completed the questionnaire on their last day of treatment and 60 upon their first f/u. The median elapsed days of treatment was 34. The median days from end of RT to f/u were 46 (range: 17-302). More pts were treated for curative intent (73%) than palliative (27%). 71% and 90% stated RT was ‘worth it’ at end of treatment and at first f/u, respectively. Upon therapy completion, 52% were ‘uncertain’ if quality of life (QOL) improved. However, at first f/u, 58% reported improved QOL. Temporal differences in treatment time favored morning treatment time over evening being ‘worthwhile’ (77% vs 61%; p = 0.015). This difference remained significant on multivariate analysis (p = 0.02). Longer elapsed days conferred higher likelihood of treatment being ‘worthwhile’ compared to ‘uncertain’ (30 days vs 24 days; p = 0.023), also significant on multivariate analysis (p = 0.029). Treatment time and elapsed days were not predictive of improved QOL. Age, gender, race, marital status, employment, treatment intent or modalities, treatment delays, distance travelled, insurance type, anatomic site of treatment, and cancer stage, did not predict pt satisfaction. Conclusions: RT as being ‘worthwhile’ was associated with morning treatment times and total duration of treatment as measured by total elapsed days. Among variables analyzed, there were no significant predictors of improved QOL. The majority of patients are satisfied with RT but there is room for improvement with those treated in afternoon or in shorter durations.

A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology

“…Patients expressed that the PROQOL tool was helpful putting forth their major concerns as demonstrated by the “Was it worth it” survey [ 25 , 26 ]. Seventy percent thought it was useful, with comments such as “It made me think about my medical issues” and that the linked resources helpful in addressing those specific areas.…”

“…Secondary endpoints included distribution of categories selected and clinical and demographic factors associated with primary categories selected by patients. Providers and patients who were randomized to the PROQOL tool completed “Was it worth it” (WIWI) items ( Appendix B ) to gauge the patients' and providers’ opinion on the utility and ease of the PROQOL tool [ 25 , 26 ].…”

An Electronic Information Kiosk for Enhancing Patient Accrual for Cancer Clinical Trials: A Pilot and Feasibility Study

“…Descriptive characteristics of the study population were analyzed using standard statistics, including proportion and percentages for categorical variables and mean and standard deviations for continuous variables. For our exploratory objective, univariate analysis and logistic regression modeling were performed on patient demographic and treatment characteristics to ascertain predictors of satisfaction [ 17 ].…”