Dataset Information

Cancer patients' perceptions regarding the value of the physical examination: a survey study.

ABSTRACT: Despite its clinical utility, progressive reliance on technology can lead to devaluing the physical examination in patients with advanced cancer. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether these patients have a positive or negative perception of the physical examination. A secondary objective was to determine whether these perceptions are related to interpersonal/relational values (symbolic) or diagnostic/objective values (pragmatic).One hundred fifty patients with cancer who were receiving concurrent oncology and palliative care were administered a 26-item survey regarding their overall perception of the physical examination. The primary outcome-patient responses to "In the last 3 months, I believe my experience while being examined has been overall: very negative (a score of -5) to very positive (a score of +5),"-was analyzed using the Sign test. Other items were predefined as either symbolic or pragmatic statements, and patient responses from strongly disagree (a score of 1) to strongly agree (a score of 5) were further analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for associations between baseline characteristics and the primary outcome.Most patients (83%) indicated that the overall experience of being examined was highly positive (median score, 4; interquartile range [IQR], 2-5; P ? .0001). Patients valued both the pragmatic aspects (median score, 5; IQR, 4-5) and symbolic aspects (median score, 4; IQR, 4-5) of the physical examination. Increasing age was independently associated with a more positive perception of the physical examination (odds ratio, 1.07 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.12 per year; P = .01).Patients with advanced cancer indicate that the physical examination is a highly positive aspect of their care. These benefits are perceived as having both symbolic and pragmatic value. The physical examination should remain a cornerstone of clinical encounters.

SUBMITTER: Kadakia KC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5841459 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cancer patients' perceptions regarding the value of the physical examination: a survey study.

Kadakia Kunal C KC Hui David D Chisholm Gary B GB Frisbee-Hume Susan E SE Williams Janet L JL Bruera Eduardo E

Cancer 20140604 14

<h4>Background</h4>Despite its clinical utility, progressive reliance on technology can lead to devaluing the physical examination in patients with advanced cancer. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether these patients have a positive or negative perception of the physical examination. A secondary objective was to determine whether these perceptions are related to interpersonal/relational values (symbolic) or diagnostic/objective values (pragmatic).<h4>Methods</h4>One hundr ...[more]

PMID: 24899511

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up. METHODS:We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up. RESULTS:Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

Project description:To evaluate patient satisfaction in Japan and factors, including timing factors, cost, and specific medical practices derived from Western influence (shared decision-making and second opinion), which might affect satisfaction.All patients who presented to 1 large Japanese department of radiation oncology for postoperative radiation therapy for breast cancer from September 2010 to November 2013 were included in this study. The questionnaire was distributed to patients after the radiation oncologist consultation, and patients were asked to complete it anonymously by the end of treatment. We measured patient satisfaction with overall treatment and for each treatment separately (surgery, radiation oncology). We further inquired regarding facts that could affect satisfaction, including time from diagnosis to treatment start, waiting time in waiting room for consultation, average length of consultations, out-of-pocket cost for breast cancer treatment, patients' opinion of the cost, level of inclusion of the patient in decision-making, level of the patient sharing her feelings with her physician, and whether the patients had asked for second opinion.Of 364 patients surveyed, 214 (58.5%) responded. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with surgeon and with radiation oncologist were 95.7%, 98.5%, and 98.2%, respectively. Factors correlated with satisfaction were waiting time for the consult in the waiting room, treatment cost, and perceived degree of sharing feelings with physicians. Overall, 27 patients (12.6%) reported having asked for second opinions. Of those who did not seek a second opinion, most (173) indicated that they did not think it was necessary.In a large, typical Japanese radiation oncology practice, breast cancer patients' satisfaction correlated with waiting time, cost, and the rate with which the patient shared her feelings with her physician. This illuminates targets for quality improvement within the Japanese system and provides interesting cross-cultural comparative data for other countries in which the context of care may differ.

Project description:BackgroundAs more health care organizations integrate social needs screening and navigation programs into clinical care delivery, the patient perspective is necessary to guide implementation and achieve patient-centered care.ObjectivesTo examine patients' perceptions of whether social needs affect health and attitudes toward healthcare system efforts to screen for and address social needs.Research designMulti-site, self-administered survey to assess (1) patient perceptions of the health impact of commonly identified social needs; (2) experience of social needs; (3) degree of support for a health system addressing social needs, including which social needs should be screened for and intervened upon; and (4) attitudes toward a health system utilizing resources to address social needs. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression models with clinic site cluster adjustment.SubjectsAdult patients at seven primary care clinics within a large, integrated health system in Southern California.Main measuresSurvey measures of experience with, acceptability of, and attitudes toward clinical social determinants of health screening and navigation.Key resultsA total of 1161 patients participated, representing a 79% response rate. Most respondents (69%) agreed that social needs impact health and agreed their health system should ask about social needs (85%) and help address social needs (88%). Patients with social needs in the last year were more likely to (1) agree social needs impact health (OR 10.2, p < 0.001), (2) support their health system asking patients about social needs (OR 3.7, p < 0.001), and (3) support addressing patient social needs (OR 3.5, p < 0.001). Differences by social need history, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education were found.ConclusionsMost patients at a large integrated health system supported clinical social needs screening and intervention. Differences in attitudes by social need history, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education may indicate opportunities to develop more equitable, patient-centered approaches to addressing social needs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the experiences of patients with prostate cancer with risk information and their perceptions of the value of personalised risk information in treatment decisions.DesignA qualitative study was conducted using focus groups. Semistructured interviews explored participants' experiences with using risk information, and their perceptions of the potential value of personalised risk information produced by clinical prediction models.ParticipantsEnglish-speaking patients, ages 54-82, diagnosed with prostate cancer within the past 3 years, residing in rural and non-rural geographic locations in Maine (USA), and attending prostate cancer patient support groups.Setting6 focus groups were conducted with 27 patients; separate groups were held for patients with low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk disease defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.ResultsSeveral participants reported receiving risk information that was imprecise rather than precise, qualitative rather than quantitative, indirect rather than direct and focused on biomarker values rather than clinical outcomes. Some participants felt that personalised risk information could be useful in helping them make better informed decisions, but expressed scepticism about its value. Many participants favoured decision-making strategies that were heuristic-based and intuitive rather than risk-based and deliberative, and perceived other forms of evidence-emotions, recommendations of trusted physicians, personal narratives-as more reliable and valuable in treatment decisions.ConclusionsPatients with prostate cancer appear to have little experience using personalised risk information, may favour heuristic-based over risk-based decision-making strategies and may perceive personalised risk information as less valuable than other types of evidence. These decision-making approaches and perceptions represent potential barriers to the clinical use of personalised risk information. Overcoming these barriers will require providing patients with greater exposure to risk information, education about the nature and value of personalised risk information and training in deliberative decision-making strategies. More research is needed to confirm these findings and address these needs.

Dataset Information

Cancer patients' perceptions regarding the value of the physical examination: a survey study.

Publications

Cancer patients' perceptions regarding the value of the physical examination: a survey study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets