Dataset Information

Key Informants' Perspectives on Accredited Breast Cancer Centres: Results of a Survey.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a survey among key informants that was conducted between June and September 2011 in Breast Cancer Centers that were accredited according to the criteria of the German Cancer Society (DKG). The survey intended to assess the degree to which the breast cancer center concept was accepted among the key informants as well as to gain an overview over structures and processes in the centers. The Questionnaire for Breast Cancer Centres Key Informants 2011 (FRIZ 2011) was used with two reminders having been sent out. Questionnaires were sent back from 149 of the 243 initially contacted hospitals (response rate: 61.3?%). The vast majority of respondents indicated to be part of the Breast Cancer Center management. 110 of the 149 hospitals did also participate in the patient survey conducted in 2010. Among the key informants surveyed, the concept is highly accepted with regard to improvements in patient care. Overall, the concept is regarded as "good" or "very good" by almost all respondents. Both contact to resident doctors and the hospitals' reputations improved since the implementation of the concept. Quality and patient safety were more often on the agenda than financial performance in the quality circles with the main co-operation partners of the Breast Cancer Centers.

SUBMITTER: Kowalski C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4168333 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Key Informants' Perspectives on Accredited Breast Cancer Centres: Results of a Survey.

Kowalski C C Wesselmann S S Ansmann L L Kreienberg R R Pfaff H H

Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 20120301 3

This paper presents the results of a survey among key informants that was conducted between June and September 2011 in Breast Cancer Centers that were accredited according to the criteria of the German Cancer Society (DKG). The survey intended to assess the degree to which the breast cancer center concept was accepted among the key informants as well as to gain an overview over structures and processes in the centers. The Questionnaire for Breast Cancer Centres Key Informants 2011 <i>(FRIZ 2011) ...[more]

PMID: 25308982

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo record how breast screening centres in England deliver all biopsy results (cancer/non-cancer) from the breast assessment visit.DesignOnline survey of 63 of 79 breast screening centres in England from all regions (East Midlands, East of England, London, North East Yorkshire & Humber, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands). The survey contained quantitative measures of frequency for telephoning biopsy results (routinely, occasionally or never) and optional qualitative free-text responses. Surveys were completed by a staff member from each centre.ResultsThere were no regional trends in the use of telephone results services, (X² (14, n=63)=11.55, p=0.64), Centres who telephoned results routinely did not deliver results sooner than centres who deliver results in-person (X² (16, n=63)=12.76, p=0.69).When delivering cancer results, 76.2% of centres never telephone results and 23.8% of centres occasionally telephone results. No centres reported delivering cancer results routinely by telephone. Qualitative content analysis suggests that cancer results are only telephoned at the patient request and under exceptional circumstances.When delivering non-cancer results, 12.7% of centres never telephoned results, 38.1% occasionally telephoned results and 49.2% routinely telephoned results. Qualitative content analysis revealed different processes for delivering telephone results, including patient choice and scheduling an in-person results appointment for all women attending breast assessment, then ringing non-cancer results unexpectedly ahead of this prebooked appointment.ConclusionsIn the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, breast assessment results that are cancer are routinely delivered in-person. However, non-cancer breast assessment results are often routinely delivered by telephone, despite breast screening policy recommendations. More research is needed to understand the impact of telephoning results on women attending breast assessment, particularly women who receive a non-cancer result. Future research should also consider how women themselves might prefer to receive their results.

Project description:ObjectiveWe sought to explore physician perspectives on the prescribing of cannabinoids to patients to gain a deeper understanding of the issues faced by prescriber and public health advisors in the rollout of medicinal cannabis.DesignA thematic qualitative analysis of 21 in-depth interviews was undertaken to explore the narrative on the policy and practice of medicinal cannabis prescribing. The analysis used the Diffusion of Innovations (DoI) theoretical framework to model the conceptualisation of the rollout of medicinal cannabis in the Australian context.SettingInformants from the states and territories of Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory, and Queensland in Australia were invited to participate in interviews to explore the policy and practice of medicinal cannabis prescribing.ParticipantsParticipants included 21 prescribing and non-prescribing key informants working in the area of neurology, rheumatology, oncology, pain medicine, psychiatry, public health, and general practice.ResultsThere was an agreement among many informants that medicinal cannabis is, indeed, a pharmaceutical innovation. From the analysis of the informant interviews, the factors that facilitate the diffusion of medicinal cannabis into clincal practice include the adoption of appropriate regulation, the use of data to evaluate safety and efficacy, improved prescriber education, and the continuous monitoring of product quality and cost. Most informants asserted the widespread assimilation of medicinal cannabis into practice is impeded by a lack of health system antecedents that are required to facilitate safe, effective, and equitable access to medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic.ConclusionsThis research highlights the tensions that arise and the factors that influence the rollout of cannabis as an unregistered medicine. Addressing these factors is essential for the safe and effective prescribing in contemporary medical practice. The findings from this research provides important evidence on medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic, and also informs the rollout of potential novel therapeutics in the future.

Project description:BackgroundTo successfully implement exercise programs for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), services and patient education should consider patients' knowledge, preferences, values, and goals. Hence, gaining insight into their perspectives on exercise and exercise programming is important.MethodIn this cross-sectional survey, we recruited patients with MBC from the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. We collected data on patients' knowledge and skills about exercise and outcome expectations. We identified barriers to and facilitators of participation in exercise programs, and patients' preferences for program content and modes of exercise delivery.ResultsA total of 420 patients participated in the survey. Respondents were, on average, 56.5 years old (SD 10.8) and 70% had bone metastases. Sixty-eight percent reported sufficient skills to engage in aerobic exercise, but only 35% did so for resistance exercise. Respondents expected exercise to have multiple physical benefits, but a few patients expected exercise to worsen their pain (5%). Not having access to an exercise program for cancer patients (27%), feeling too tired (23%), and/or weak (23%) were the most often reported barriers. Facilitators for exercising regularly were previous positive physical (72%) and emotional (68%) experiences with exercising, and receiving personalized advice from a physiotherapist or sport/fitness instructor (62%). Patients were most interested in walking and preferred exercising at a public gym, although there were differences by country. Fifty-seven percent did not know whether their insurance company reimburses exercise programs and only 9% would be willing to pay more than €50 per month to participate.ConclusionA large percentage of patients with MBC lack the skills to engage in regular exercise as recommended by exercise guidelines for people with cancer. Patients may benefit from personalized advice and appropriate training facilities to overcome barriers. When implementing exercise interventions, attention should be given to reimbursement and the relatively low willingness-to-pay.

Project description:BackgroundPeer support is an essential part of recovery-oriented care worldwide. Contextual factors have an impact on the implementation of peer support work. However, research has paid little attention to similarities and differences of implementation factors in settings varying by income-level and cultural values. The aim of this study is to assess the factors influencing the implementation of a peer support intervention across study sites in low-, middle- and high-income countries in line with the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Method6 focus groups with a total of 54 key informants with relevant contextual (organisational) knowledge regarding implementation facilitators and barriers were conducted at six study sites Ulm and Hamburg (Germany), Butabika (Uganda), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Be'er Sheva (Israel), and Pune (India) before and 1.5 years after the start of UPSIDES peer support. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsAcross study sites key informants reported benefits of peer support for service users and peer support workers as implementation facilitators. At study sites with lower resources, reduced workload for mental health workers and improved access to mental health services through peer support were perceived as implementation facilitators (CFIR Domain 1: Intervention characteristics). The degree of engagement of mental health workers (CFIR Domain 3: Inner Setting/Domain 4: Individuals involved) varied across study sites and was seen either as a barrier (low engagement) or a facilitator (high engagement). Across study sites, adequate training of peer support workers (CFIR Domain 5: Implementation process) was seen as animplementation facilitator, while COVID-19 as well as low resource availability were reported as implementation barriers (CFIR Domain 2: Outer setting).ConclusionsThis study highlights the importance of considering contextual factors when implementing peer support, including previous experience and perceived benefits. Particular attention should be given to organisational benefits such as workload reduction and the allocation of sufficient resources as key drivers in LMICs. In HICs, the potential of organisational benefits for successful implementation should be further investigated and promoted.

Dataset Information

Key Informants' Perspectives on Accredited Breast Cancer Centres: Results of a Survey.

Publications

Key Informants' Perspectives on Accredited Breast Cancer Centres: Results of a Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets