Dataset Information

A review of cost communication in oncology: Patient attitude, provider acceptance, and outcome assessment.

ABSTRACT: The American Society of Clinical Oncology released its first guidance statement on the cost of cancer care in August 2009, affirming that patient-physician cost communication is a critical component of high-quality care. This forward-thinking recommendation has grown increasingly important in oncology practice today as the high costs of cancer care impose tremendous financial burden to patients, their families, and the health care system. For the current review, a literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify articles that covered 3 topics related to patient-physician cost communication: patient attitude, physician acceptance, and the associated outcomes; and 15 articles from 12 distinct studies were identified. Although most articles that addressed patient attitude suggested that cost communication is desired by >50% of patients in the respective study cohorts, only <33% of patients in those studies had actually discussed costs with their physicians. The literature on physician acceptance indicated that, although 75% of physicians considered discussions of out-of-pocket costs with patients their responsibility, <30% felt comfortable with such communication. When asked about whether cost communication actually took place in their practice, percentages reported by physicians varied widely from <10% to >60%. The data suggested that cost communication was associated with improved patient satisfaction, lower out-of-pocket expenses, and a higher likelihood of medication nonadherence; none of the studies established causality. Both patients and physicians expressed a strong need for accurate, accessible, and transparent information about the cost of cancer care. Cancer 2017;123:928-39. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

SUBMITTER: Shih YT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5339042 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A review of cost communication in oncology: Patient attitude, provider acceptance, and outcome assessment.

Shih Ya-Chen Tina YT Chien Chun-Ru CR

Cancer 20161128 6

The American Society of Clinical Oncology released its first guidance statement on the cost of cancer care in August 2009, affirming that patient-physician cost communication is a critical component of high-quality care. This forward-thinking recommendation has grown increasingly important in oncology practice today as the high costs of cancer care impose tremendous financial burden to patients, their families, and the health care system. For the current review, a literature search was conducted ...[more]

PMID: 27893929

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with chronic conditions require ongoing care which not only necessitates support from health care providers outside appointments but also self-management. Web-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication, such as secure messaging, allow for sharing of contextual information and personal narrative in a simple accessible medium, empowering patients and enabling their providers to address emerging care needs. OBJECTIVE:The objectives of this study were to (1) conduct a systematic search of the published literature and the Internet for Web-based tools for text-based communication between patients and providers; (2) map tool characteristics, their intended use, contexts in which they were used, and by whom; (3) describe the nature of their evaluation; and (4) understand the terminology used to describe the tools. METHODS:We conducted a scoping review using the MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) databases. We summarized information on the characteristics of the tools (structure, functions, and communication paradigm), intended use, context and users, evaluation (study design and outcomes), and terminology. We performed a parallel search of the Internet to compare with tools identified in the published literature. RESULTS:We identified 54 papers describing 47 unique tools from 13 countries studied in the context of 68 chronic health conditions. The majority of tools (77%, 36/47) had functions in addition to communication (eg, viewable care plan, symptom diary, or tracker). Eight tools (17%, 8/47) were described as allowing patients to communicate with the team or multiple health care providers. Most of the tools were intended to support communication regarding symptom reporting (49%, 23/47), and lifestyle or behavior modification (36%, 17/47). The type of health care providers who used tools to communicate with patients were predominantly allied health professionals of various disciplines (30%, 14/47), nurses (23%, 11/47), and physicians (19%, 9/47), among others. Over half (52%, 25/48) of the tools were evaluated in randomized controlled trials, and 23 tools (48%, 23/48) were evaluated in nonrandomized studies. Terminology of tools varied by intervention type and functionality and did not consistently reflect a theme of communication. The majority of tools found in the Internet search were patient portals from 6 developers; none were found among published articles. CONCLUSIONS:Web-based tools for text-based patient-provider communication were identified from a wide variety of clinical contexts and with varied functionality. Tools were most prevalent in contexts where intended use was self-management. Few tools for team-based communication were found, but this may become increasingly important as chronic disease care becomes more interdisciplinary.

Project description:The objective of this study was to understand how pain patients and health care providers (HCPs) are engaging on Twitter and what insights this engagement might provide. By identifying how information is spread by and between these audiences, organizations such as patient advocacy groups may be better poised to develop and share materials that facilitate online communication between HCPs and pain patients, with an end goal of improving a shared decision-making process around pain management. We analyzed the Twitter audiences most engaged on pain topics by conducting a Social Network Analysis (SNA) of a large network of connected users on Twitter. The analysis segmented users based on the sources they cited and measured their influence based on who follows them. As a point of comparison, we also conducted an SNA of Twitter audiences most engaged on oncology topics. Oncology was chosen as a comparison due to what was perceived to be a highly developed online network of both patients and physicians. The populations included in this research included 12,086 accounts that were highly engaged on pain-related topics, and 12,617 accounts that were highly engaged on oncology-related topics. Network statistics were generated for variables including: word use, sources cited, retweets, and mentions. We also statistically analyzed the Twitter follow relationships among select HCPs and patient groups within each SNA. The creation of separate pain and oncology SNAs allowed the team to compare relationships and engagement related to these topics. We found that on Twitter, pain patients and providers appear to interact less than oncology patients and providers. Pain patients do not appear to follow medical professionals or share medical or health-related information on Twitter to the same extent as oncology patients. In addition, we found that pain patients do not communicate on Twitter in the same language as HCPs. Our results are important because they underscore that challenges in communication are not just problematic in face-to-face interactions, but also in digital social network (Twitter) interactions, serving as an additional roadblock to what can be shared decision-making opportunities around pain management. Contributing to this roadblock is access to quality information and a potential need for an online, evidence-based resource hub that could benefit the pain patient community in the same way that cancer.gov serves as a source of aggregated materials for oncology patients and HCPs. This study is an illustration of how social media networks like Twitter can be used to better understand the relationships, language gaps, and shared resources between pain patients and providers and offers a template for using digital social network (Twitter) interactions to research other difficult-to-treat or rare disease states.

Dataset Information

A review of cost communication in oncology: Patient attitude, provider acceptance, and outcome assessment.

Publications

A review of cost communication in oncology: Patient attitude, provider acceptance, and outcome assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets