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: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.

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:ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine how patients perceive shared decision-making regarding CT scan referral and use of the five Choosing Wisely questions with their general practitioner (GP).DesignThis is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews.SettingThis study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia.ParticipantsFollowing purposive sampling, 20 patients and 2 carers participated. Patient participants aged 18 years or older were eligible if they were attending the healthcare organisation for a CT scan and referred by their GP. Carers/family were eligible to participate when they were in the role of an unpaid carer and were aged 18 years or older. Participants were required to speak English sufficiently to provide informed consent. Participants with cognitive impairment were excluded.FindingsEighteen interviews were conducted with the patient only. Two interviews were conducted with the patient and the patient's carer. Fourteen participants were female. Five themes resulted from the thematic analysis: (1) needing to know, (2) questioning doctors is not necessary, (3) discussing scans is not required, (4) uncertainty about questioning and (5) valuing the Choosing Wisely questions. Participants reported that they presented to their GP with a health problem that they needed to understand and address. Participants accepted their GPs decision to prescribe a CT scan to identify the nature of their problem. They reported ambivalence about engaging in shared decision-making with their doctor, although many participants reported valuing the Choosing Wisely questions.ConclusionsShared decision-making is an important principle underpinning Choosing Wisely. Practice implementation requires understanding patients' motivations to engage in shared decision-making with a focus on attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and emotions. Systems-level support and education for healthcare practitioners in effective communication is important. However, this needs to emphasise communication with patients who have varying degrees of motivation to engage in shared decision-making and Choosing Wisely.

Project description:IntroductionMisperceptions about ulcerative colitis (UC) may influence management strategies and limit opportunities for improving patient outcomes. This study assessed physicians' perceptions of UC, concepts of disease severity and remission, and treatment goals.MethodsGastroenterologists who typically treated ≥10 adults with UC per month were recruited for a large-scale, web-based survey. Participants were asked about their perceptions of UC (often vs. Crohn's disease [CD]), treatment goals, and medication use. Response data were evaluated via descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable analyses.ResultsGastroenterologists (N = 500) with a mean of 16.5 years (standard deviation, 8.7 years) in practice participated. In comparison to CD, survey respondents perceived UC as being easier to diagnose, having better treatment outcomes, and being associated with later prescribing of biologics. Treatment goals commonly considered to have the greatest importance included quality of life improvement (31.2% of respondents), maintenance of clinical remission (17.4%), and mucosal healing (17.4%). When respondents evaluated the performance of medication classes in achieving these goals, biologics were rated significantly higher than all other classes (P < 0.05). However, the most common drivers for the initiation of biologic therapy were the development of steroid refractoriness (66.8%) and steroid dependency (65.8%). Medication class use by UC severity was generally consistent with the traditional step-up approach to UC therapy, with biologics being used most commonly for severe UC.ConclusionThese results suggest a possible disparity between treatment goals and therapeutic management in UC. An increased awareness of general UC perceptions is an important step toward a better overall understanding of the disease and, ultimately, toward improved management aligned with treatment goals.FundingThis study was sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), and the design and conduct of the study as well as article processing charges and the open access fee for this publication were funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (TPI).

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.

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