Dataset Information

Qualitative analysis of patients' feedback from a PROMs survey of cancer patients in England.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study examined how free-text comments from cancer survivors could complement formal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), as part of the England PROMs survey programme for cancer.

Design

A qualitative content analysis was conducted of responses to a single open-ended free-text question placed at the end of the cross-sectional population-based postal questionnaire.

Setting

Individuals were identified through three UK Cancer Registries and questionnaires were posted to their home addresses.

Participants

A random sample of individuals (n=4992) diagnosed with breast, colorectal, non-Hodgkins lymphoma or prostate cancer at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years earlier.

Results

3300 participants completed the survey (68% response rate). Of these 1056 (32%) completed the free-text comments box, indicating a high level of commitment to provide written feedback on patient experience. Almost a fifth (19%) related experiences of excellent care during the treatment phase, with only 8% reporting negative experiences. This contrasted with experiences of care after primary cancer treatment where the majority were negative. Factors impacting negatively upon patient-reported outcomes included the emotional impact of cancer; poor experiences of treatment and care; comorbidities, treatment side effects, social difficulties and inadequate preparation for a wide range of sometimes long-lasting on-going physical and psychological problems. Mediating factors assisting recovery incorporated both professional-led factors, such as quality of preparation for anticipated problems and aftercare services, and participant-led factors, such as learning from other cancer survivors and self-learning through trial and error. The support of friends and family was also a factor in participants' outcomes.

Conclusions

This analysis of free-text comments complements quantitative analysis of PROMs measure's by illuminating relationships between factors that impact on quality of life (QoL) and indicate why cancer patients may experience significantly worse QoL than the general population. The data suggest more systematic preparation and aftercare for individuals to self-manage post-treatment problems might improve QoL outcomes among cancer survivors.

SUBMITTER: Corner J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3641435 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Qualitative analysis of patients' feedback from a PROMs survey of cancer patients in England.

Corner Jessica J Wagland Richard R Glaser Adam A Richards Sir Mike SM

BMJ open 20130410 4

<h4>Objective</h4>This study examined how free-text comments from cancer survivors could complement formal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), as part of the England PROMs survey programme for cancer.<h4>Design</h4>A qualitative content analysis was conducted of responses to a single open-ended free-text question placed at the end of the cross-sectional population-based postal questionnaire.<h4>Setting</h4>Individuals were identified through three UK Cancer Registries and questionnaires w ...[more]

PMID: 23578681

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOutpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) provides opportunities for improved cost savings, but in the UK, implementation is patchy and a variety of service models are in use. The slow uptake in the UK and Europe is due to a number of clinical, financial and logistical issues, including concern about patient safety. The measurement of patient experience data is commonly used to inform commissioning decisions, but these focus on functional aspects of services and fail to examine the relational aspects of care. This qualitative study examines patients' experiences of OPAT.DesignIn-depth, semistructured interviews.SettingPurposive sample of OPAT patients recruited from four acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in Northern England. These NHS Trusts between them represented both well-established and recently set-up services running nurse at home, hospital outpatient and/or self-administration models.ParticipantsWe undertook 28 semistructured interviews and one focus group (n=4).ResultsDespite good patient outcomes, experiences were coloured by patients' personal situation and material circumstances. Many found looking after themselves at home more difficult than they expected, while others continued to work despite their infection. Expensive car parking, late running services and the inconvenience of waiting in for the nurse to arrive frustrated patients, while efficient services, staffed by nurses with the specialist skills needed to manage intravenous treatment had the opposite effect. Many patients felt a local, general practitioner or community health centre based service would resolve many of the practical difficulties that made OPAT inconvenient. Patients could find OPAT anxiety provoking but this could be ameliorated by staff taking the time to reassure patients and provide tailored information.ConclusionServices configurations must accommodate the diversity of the local population. Poor communication can leave patients lacking the confidence needed to be a competent collaborator in their own care and affect their perceptions of the service.

Project description:BackgroundThe growth in the volume of online patient feedback, including online patient ratings and comments, suggests that patients are embracing the opportunity to review online their experience of receiving health care. Very little is known about health care professionals' attitudes toward online patient feedback and whether health care professionals are comfortable with the public nature of the feedback.ObjectiveThe aim of the overall study was to explore and describe general practitioners' attitudes toward online patient feedback. This paper reports on the findings of one of the aims of the study, which was to explore and understand the concerns that general practitioners (GPs) in England have about online patient feedback. This could then be used to improve online patient feedback platforms and help to increase usage of online patient feedback by GPs and, by extension, their patients.MethodsA descriptive qualitative approach using face-to-face semistructured interviews was used in this study. A topic guide was developed following a literature review and discussions with key stakeholders. GPs (N=20) were recruited from Cambridgeshire, London, and Northwest England through probability and snowball sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed in NVivo using the framework method, a form of thematic analysis.ResultsMost participants in this study had concerns about online patient feedback. They questioned the validity of online patient feedback because of data and user biases and lack of representativeness, the usability of online patient feedback due to the feedback being anonymous, the transparency of online patient feedback because of the risk of false allegations and breaching confidentiality, and the resulting impact of all those factors on them, their professional practice, and their relationship with their patients.ConclusionsThe majority of GPs interviewed had reservations and concerns about online patient feedback and questioned its validity and usefulness among other things. Based on the findings from the study, recommendations for online patient feedback website providers in England are given. These include suggestions to make some specific changes to the platform and the need to promote online patient feedback more among both GPs and health care users, which may help to reduce some of the concerns raised by GPs about online patient feedback in this study.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in third sector organisations (TSOs) delivering health and well-being services.DesignA qualitative interview study. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowballing methods. Framework analysis was used.SettingTSOs including charities, community groups and not-for-profit organisations in England, UK.ParticipantsThirty interviewees including service users, TSO front-line workers and managers, commissioners of TSOs and other stakeholders such as academic researchers.ResultsTSOs primarily used PROMs because of pressures arising from the external funding context. However, organisations often struggled to implement PROMs, rarely getting the process right first time. Facilitators for implementation included having an implementation lead committed to making it work, investing resources in data management systems and support staff and taking a collaborative approach to designing the PROMs process. The latter helped to ensure an appropriate PROMs process for the specific TSO including choosing a suitable measure and planning how data would be collected, processed and used. There was a dilemma about whether TSOs should use standardised well-being measures (eg, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) or design their own PROM. Not all TSOs sustained the collection and reporting of PROMs over time because this required a change in organisational culture to view PROMs as beneficial for the TSO and PROMs becoming part of front-line workers' job specifications.ConclusionsTSOs are trying to use PROMs because they feel they have no choice but often struggle with implementation. Having an implementation lead, designing an appropriate process, investing resources, training staff and taking mitigating action to address potential barriers can facilitate implementation. Some of the findings are consistent with the experiences of more clinical services so appear relevant to the implementation of PROMs irrespective of the specific context.

Project description:BackgroundGeneral practices (GPs) in England have recently introduced a nationwide electronic personal health record (ePHR) system called Patient Online or GP online services, which allows patients to view parts of their medical records, book appointments, and request prescription refills. Although this system is free of charge, its adoption rates are low. To improve patients' adoption and implementation success of the system, it is important to understand the factors affecting their use of the system.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to explore patients' perspectives of factors affecting their use of ePHRs in England.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was carried out between August 21 and September 26, 2017. A questionnaire was used in this survey to collect mainly quantitative data through closed-ended questions in addition to qualitative data through an open-ended question. A convenience sample was recruited in 4 GPs in West Yorkshire, England. Given that the quantitative data were analyzed in a previous study, we analyzed the qualitative data using thematic analysis.ResultsOf the 800 eligible patients invited to participate in the survey, 624 (78.0%) returned a fully completed questionnaire. Of those returned questionnaires, the open-ended question was answered by 136/624 (21.8%) participants. A total of 2 meta-themes emerged from participants' responses. The first meta-theme comprises 5 themes about why patients do not use Patient Online: concerns about using Patient Online, lack of awareness of Patient Online, challenges regarding internet and computers, perceived characteristics of nonusers, and preference for personal contact. The second meta-theme contains 1 theme about why patients use Patient Online: encouraging features of Patient Online.ConclusionsThe challenges and concerns that impede the use of Patient Online seem to be of greater importance than the facilitators that encourage its use. There are practical considerations that, if incorporated into the system, are likely to improve its adoption rate: Patient Online should be useful, easy to use, secure, and easy to access. Different channels should be used to increase the awareness of the system, and GPs should ease registration with the system and provide manuals, training sessions, and technical support. More research is needed to assess the effect of the new factors found in this study (eg, lack of trust, difficulty registering with Patient Online) and factors affecting the continuing use of the system.

Project description:BackgroundCancer-related stigma attracts considerable research interest, but few studies have examined stigmatisation in the healthy population. Qualitative studies suggest that stigma can discourage people from attending cancer screening. We aimed to quantify the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of cancer stigma in the general population and to explore its association with cancer screening attendance.MethodsIn 2016, 1916 adults aged 18-70?years took part in home-based interviews in England. Measures assessed demographic characteristics, self-reported screening uptake for cervical (n?=?681), breast (n?=?326) and colorectal cancer (n?=?371), and cancer stigma. Cancer stigma was measured with the validated Cancer Stigma Scale which assesses six subdomains (Severity, Personal Responsibility, Awkwardness, Avoidance, Policy Opposition, and Financial Discrimination), from which a mean score was calculated. Logistic regression analyses examined the association between cancer stigma and having been screened as recommended versus not.ResultsLevels of cancer stigma were low, but varied across the six subdomains. Items regarding the severity of a cancer diagnosis attracted the highest levels of agreement (30-51%), followed by statements about the acceptability of making financial decisions on the basis of a cancer diagnosis such as allowing banks to refuse a mortgage (16-31%) and policy opposition statements such as not having a responsibility to provide the best possible care for cancer patients (10-17%). A similar proportion anticipated feeling awkward around someone with cancer (10-17%). Only 8-11% agreed with personal responsibility statements, such as that a person with cancer is to blame for their condition, while 4-5% of adults anticipated avoiding someone with cancer. Stigma was significantly higher in men (p?<?.05) and in those from ethnic minority backgrounds (p?<?.001). Higher cancer stigma was associated with not being screened as recommended for all three screening programmes (cervical: adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.15-2.20; breast: adjusted OR?=?1.97, 95% CI 1.17-3.32; colorectal: adjusted OR?=?1.59, 95% CI 1.06-2.38).ConclusionsCancer stigma is generally low, but some aspects of stigma are more prevalent than others. Stigma is more prevalent in certain population subgroups and is negatively associated with cancer screening uptake. These benchmark findings may help track and reduce cancer stigma over time.

Dataset Information

Qualitative analysis of patients' feedback from a PROMs survey of cancer patients in England.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Qualitative analysis of patients' feedback from a PROMs survey of cancer patients in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets