Dataset Information

Discussing HPV with oropharyngeal cancer patients: A cross-sectional survey of attitudes in health professionals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is now known to cause a significant proportion of head and neck cancers (HNC). Qualitative research has shown that some health professionals find it difficult to discuss HPV with patients due to its sexually transmitted nature, and have concerns about their own knowledge of the virus. We used a survey to quantify attitudes towards discussing HPV among HNC health professionals.

Methods

We carried out a cross-sectional survey of HNC health professionals (n=260) in the UK and Ireland, assessing participants' knowledge of HPV, their experiences of and attitudes towards discussing HPV with patients, and their willingness to discuss HPV with their patients in the future.

Results

Overall, health professionals had good knowledge of HPV (mean score: 9.97 out of 12). Oncologists had significantly greater knowledge than specialist nurses, speech and language therapists and 'other' health professionals. Most were willing to discuss HPV with patients (mean=4.3 out of 5). Willingness to discuss HPV in the future was associated with higher HPV knowledge (r=0.35, p<0.001), fewer negative and more positive attitudes towards discussing HPV (r=-0.23 and r=0.20 respectively, both p<0.001), fewer personal barriers (r=-0.49, p<0.001) and greater confidence (r=0.58, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Knowledge, experiences and attitudes to discussing HPV varied across HNC health professionals. Addressing gaps in health professionals' HPV knowledge and improving their confidence in discussing HPV with patients may increase their willingness to have such conversations. This may help minimise the negative psychosocial consequences of an HPV diagnosis in this patient group.

SUBMITTER: Dodd RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5414413 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Discussing HPV with oropharyngeal cancer patients: A cross-sectional survey of attitudes in health professionals.

Dodd Rachael H RH Forster Alice S AS Waller Jo J Marlow Laura A V LAV

Oral oncology 20170401

<h4>Background</h4>Human papillomavirus (HPV) is now known to cause a significant proportion of head and neck cancers (HNC). Qualitative research has shown that some health professionals find it difficult to discuss HPV with patients due to its sexually transmitted nature, and have concerns about their own knowledge of the virus. We used a survey to quantify attitudes towards discussing HPV among HNC health professionals.<h4>Methods</h4>We carried out a cross-sectional survey of HNC health profe ...[more]

PMID: 28438296

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health research repositories propose sharing longitudinal streams of health records and personal sensing data between multiple projects and researchers. Motivated by the prospect of personalizing patient care (precision medicine), these initiatives demand broad public acceptance and large numbers of data contributors, both of which are challenging.ObjectiveThis study investigates public attitudes toward possibly contributing to digital health research repositories to identify factors for their acceptance and to inform future developments.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 2020 to December 2020. Because of the funded project scope and a multicenter collaboration, study recruitment targeted young adults in Denmark and Brazil, allowing an analysis of the differences between 2 very contrasting national contexts. Through closed-ended questions, the survey examined participants' willingness to share different data types, data access preferences, reasons for concern, and motivations to contribute. The survey also collected information about participants' demographics, level of interest in health topics, previous participation in health research, awareness of examples of existing research data repositories, and current attitudes about digital health research repositories. Data analysis consisted of descriptive frequency measures and statistical inferences (bivariate associations and logistic regressions).ResultsThe sample comprises 1017 respondents living in Brazil (1017/1600, 63.56%) and 583 in Denmark (583/1600, 36.44%). The demographics do not differ substantially between participants of these countries. The majority is aged between 18 and 27 years (933/1600, 58.31%), is highly educated (992/1600, 62.00%), uses smartphones (1562/1600, 97.63%), and is in good health (1407/1600, 87.94%). The analysis shows a vast majority were very motivated by helping future patients (1366/1600, 85.38%) and researchers (1253/1600, 78.31%), yet very concerned about unethical projects (1219/1600, 76.19%), profit making without consent (1096/1600, 68.50%), and cyberattacks (1055/1600, 65.94%). Participants' willingness to share data is lower when sharing personal sensing data, such as the content of calls and texts (1206/1600, 75.38%), in contrast to more traditional health research information. Only 13.44% (215/1600) find it desirable to grant data access to private companies, and most would like to stay informed about which projects use their data (1334/1600, 83.38%) and control future data access (1181/1600, 73.81%). Findings indicate that favorable attitudes toward digital health research repositories are related to a personal interest in health topics (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02; P=.01), previous participation in health research studies (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.24-2.35; P=.001), and awareness of examples of research repositories (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.83-4.38; P<.001).ConclusionsThis study reveals essential factors for acceptance and willingness to share personal data with digital health research repositories. Implications include the importance of being more transparent about the goals and beneficiaries of research projects using and re-using data from repositories, providing participants with greater autonomy for choosing who gets access to which parts of their data, and raising public awareness of the benefits of data sharing for research. In addition, future developments should engage with and reduce risks for those unwilling to participate.

Project description:BackgroundAccess to correct and up to date medication information is crucial for effective patient treatment. However, persistent discrepancies exist. This study examines the experiences and challenges health professionals encounter while utilizing current digital solutions in the Norwegian healthcare system to manage patients' medication information.MethodsA cross-sectional descriptive analysis using quantitative survey data was conducted to investigate how health professionals managed patients' medication information. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses concerning challenges they encountered when transferring medication information and to identify factors deemed necessary for implementing the Shared Medication List in Norway.ResultsA total of 262 doctors and 244 nurses responded to the survey. A higher percentage of doctors (72.2%) expressed concerns regarding obtaining accurate and updated medication lists than nurses (42.9%), particularly for patients with polypharmacy (35.3%) or transitioning between primary and specialist care services (27.6%). The patient's verbal information was the main source for hospital doctors (17%) to obtain an overview of the patient's medication usage, while general practitioners (19%) and nurses (working in both primary and specialist care services, 28% and 27% respectively) predominantly relied on electronic prescriptions. Doctors, in particular general practitioners, reported carrying excessive responsibilities in coordinating with other health actors (84.8%) and managing patients' medication information. The vast majority of both doctors (84.4%) and nurses (82.0%) were in favor of a Shared Medication List. However, about a third of doctors (36.3%) and nurses (29.8%) expressed the need for a more balanced responsibility in updating and managing patients' medication information, while ensuring compatibility with existing digital systems.ConclusionsFragmented resources for medication information and unclear responsibilities were prevalent concerns among both professional groups. Doctors voiced more concern than nurses about the accuracy of patients' medication list. While both groups are positive about a shared medication list, successful implementation requires proactive training initiatives and clearer role clarification.

Project description:The demand for fetal monitoring and constant reassurance is high in pregnant women. Consequently, pregnant women use various health apps and are more likely to visit emergency departments due to subjective but nonurgent complaints. However, electronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) solutions are rarely used to prevent nonurgent emergency consultations. To implement modern care solutions, a better understanding of the attitudes, fears, and hopes of health care professionals toward eHealth and mHealth is needed.The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes of health care professionals in obstetrics toward telemedicine.A quantitative Web-based survey on health care professionals in obstetrics in Germany was conducted. The participants included nurses, midwives, and physicians of all age groups and job positions working in hospitals that provide various levels of health care. The questionnaire comprised 24 questions about the characteristics of the study population, views about emergency consultations in obstetrics, attitude toward telemedicine, job satisfaction, and sleeping behavior.In total, 244 health care professionals participated in the Web-based survey. In general, health care professionals were skeptical (170/233, 72.9%) about the use of telemedicine in obstetrics; however, 55.8% (130/233) recognized its potential. Moreover, 72% (62/86) of physicians were optimistic in using apps for pregnancy monitoring, whereas 36.1% (47/130) of nonphysicians (P<.001) were not. Significantly, more nonphysicians rejected such developments (75/130, 57.7% rejected) compared with physicians (24/86, 28%; P<.001). We also found that obstetricians with more than 10 years of work-experience are more skeptical; however, approximately 49% (18/37) of them believed that telemedicine could reduce nonurgent emergency consultations, whereas 73.2% (106/145) of obstetricians with less than 5 years of experience (P=.01) thought otherwise. Our survey revealed a high job satisfaction and a prevalence of regular sleeping problems of 45.9% (91/198) among health care professionals in obstetrics. Surprisingly, both job satisfaction and sleeping problems were independent from the number of night shifts per month (P=.77 and P=.99, respectively). Yet, 56.6% (112/198) of the survey participants thought they would be happier with their job if they had to work fewer night shifts per month.Our study reveals an ambivalent attitude toward the use of telemedicine among health care professionals in obstetrics in Germany at the moment. Efforts to promote the use of telemedicine should focus on nurses and midwives because these groups are the most skeptical. By contrast, particularly young physicians recognize the potential of apps in patient care and would like to use such technology in pregnancy monitoring.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health genomics is an emerging multidisciplinary approach, which aims to integrate genome-based knowledge in a responsible and effective way into public health. Despite several surveys performed to evaluate knowledge, attitudes and professional behaviors of physicians towards predictive genetic testing, similar surveys have not been carried out for public health practitioners. This study is the first to assess knowledge, attitudes and training needs of public health professionals in the field of predictive genetic testing for chronic diseases.MethodsA self-administered questionnaire was used to carry out a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of Italian public health professionals.ResultsA response rate of 67.4% (797 questionnaires) was achieved. Italian public health professionals have the necessary attitudinal background to contribute to the proper use of predictive genetic testing for chronic diseases, but they need additional training to increase their methodological knowledge. Knowledge significantly increases with exposure to predictive genetic testing during postgraduate training (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-2.88), time dedicated to continuing medical education (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.14-2.04) and level of English language knowledge (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.07-1.72). Adequate knowledge is the strongest predictor of positive attitudes from a public health perspective (OR = 3.98, 95% CI = 2.44-6.50). Physicians show a lower level of knowledge and more public health attitudes than other public health professionals do. About 80% of public health professionals considered their knowledge inadequate and 86.0% believed that it should be improved through specific postgraduate training courses.ConclusionsSpecific and targeted training initiatives are needed to develop a skilled public health workforce competent in identifying genomic technology that is ready for use in population health and in modeling public health genomic programs and primary care services that need to be developed, implemented and evaluated.

Dataset Information

Discussing HPV with oropharyngeal cancer patients: A cross-sectional survey of attitudes in health professionals.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Discussing HPV with oropharyngeal cancer patients: A cross-sectional survey of attitudes in health professionals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets