Dataset Information

Development and pilot of an international survey: 'Radiation Therapists and Psychosocial Support'.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Up to one third of radiation therapy patients are reported to have unmet psychosocial needs. Radiation therapists (RTs) have daily contact with patients and can provide daily psychosocial support to reduce patient anxiety, fear and loneliness. However, RTs vary in their values, skills, training, knowledge and involvement in providing psychosocial support. The aims of this study were to: (1) develop an online survey instrument to explore RT values, skills, training and knowledge regarding patient anxiety and psychosocial support, and (2) pilot the instrument with RT professionals to assess content validity, functionality and length.

Method

An online cross-sectional survey, titled 'Radiation therapists and psychosocial support' was developed. Items included patient vignettes, embedded items from RT research, and the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL5). Four radiation oncology departments volunteered to pilot the survey; each nominated four RT staff to participate. Survey data were analysed descriptively and qualitative feedback grouped and coded to determine whether the survey needed to be refined.

Results

Thirteen of sixteen RTs completed the pilot survey and feedback form. Median time to completion was 35 mins, with 54% of respondents stating this was too long. Respondents reported content, questions and response options were relevant and appropriate. Feedback was used to: refine the survey instrument, minimise responder burden and drop out and improve functionality and quality of data collection.

Conclusion

This pilot of the 'Radiation therapists and psychosocial support' survey instrument demonstrated content validity and usability. The main survey will be circulated to a representative sample of RTs for completion.

SUBMITTER: Elsner KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6119728 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and pilot of an international survey: 'Radiation Therapists and Psychosocial Support'.

Elsner Kelly L KL Naehrig Diana D Halkett Georgia K B GKB Dhillon Haryana M HM

Journal of medical radiation sciences 20180607 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Up to one third of radiation therapy patients are reported to have unmet psychosocial needs. Radiation therapists (RTs) have daily contact with patients and can provide daily psychosocial support to reduce patient anxiety, fear and loneliness. However, RTs vary in their values, skills, training, knowledge and involvement in providing psychosocial support. The aims of this study were to: (1) develop an online survey instrument to explore RT values, skills, training and knowle ...[more]

PMID: 29877630

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection.ResultsThe principal intervention topics were "changes in everyday life" (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), "anxiety" (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), "uncertainty" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), "tension/distress" (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and "trust in the body" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were "family/relative therapy" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and "anxiety treatment" (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was "during inpatient rehabilitation" (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by "shortly after inpatient rehabilitation" (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions.ConclusionsOur findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.

Project description:BackgroundPositive attitude toward evidence-based practice (EBP) principles in healthcare education may be one of the first steps for motivating a healthcare professional student to later apply EBP principles in clinical decision-making. The objectives for this project were to pilot an international web-based survey of chiropractic students and to describe student attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge about EBP principles.MethodsWe used SurveyMonkey™ to develop our survey based on an existing questionnaire used to measure basic knowledge, skills and beliefs about EBP among allied healthcare professionals and CAM practitioners. We invited 26 chiropractic educational institutions teaching in English and accredited by official organizations to participate. Academic officials and registrars at participating institutions forwarded an invitation email and two reminders to students between July and September 2010. The invitation contained a link to the 38-item web-based questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were performed for analysis.ResultsFourteen institutions from Australia, Canada, US, Denmark and New Zealand participated. Among an estimated 7,142 student recipients of invitation letters, 674 participated in the survey for an estimated response rate of 9.4%. Most respondents reported having access to medical/healthcare literature through the internet, but only 11% read literature every week and 21% did not read literature at all. Respondents generally agreed that the use of research evidence in chiropractic was important. Although 76% of respondents found it easy to understand research evidence and 81% had some level of confidence assessing the general worth of research articles, 71% felt they needed more training in EBP to be able to apply evidence in chiropractic care. Respondents without previous training in research methods had lower confidence in assessing published papers. While more than 60% marked the correct answer for two knowledge items, the mean number of correct answers to the five knowledge questions was 1.3 (SD 0.9).ConclusionsAlthough it is feasible to conduct an international web survey of chiropractic students, significant stakeholder participation is important to improve response rates. Students had relatively positive attitudes toward EBP. However, participants felt they needed more training in EBP and based on the knowledge questions they may need further training about basic research concepts.

Project description:PurposeMedical errors in radiation oncology sometimes involve tasks reliant on practitioners' grasp of numeracy. Numeracy has been shown to be suboptimal across various health care professionals. Herein, we assess health numeracy among American Society of Radiologic Technologists (ASRT) members.Methods and materialsThe Numeracy Understanding for Medicine instrument (NUMi), an instrument to measure numeracy in the general population, was adapted to oncology for this study and distributed to ASRT members (n = 14,228) in 2017. Per NUMi scoring, health numeracy scores were categorized as low (0-7), low average (8-12), high average (13-17), or high (18-20). The impact of cGy versus Gy on numeracy performance was investigated. Spearman's rho and a Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test were used for comparisons between the different groups.ResultsA total of 662 eligible participants completed the instrument and identified as radiation oncology professionals. In the cGy and Gy NUMi scores, approximately 2% of respondents scored low-average, approximately 40% scored high-average, and approximately 58% scored high, with a median score of 18.0. Although the optimum NUMi score for ASRT members is unknown, one might expect our cohort to have numeracy skills at least as high as college freshmen. Roughly one-sixth of our study group scored at or below the average score of college freshmen (NUMi = 15). In the subset analysis of NUMi questions pertaining to radiation dose unit (cGy vs Gy), respondents performed better with cGy (mean score: 2.94; range, 2-3) versus Gy (mean: 2.91; range, 0-3; P = .011).ConclusionsIn this study of limited sample size, overall numeracy is quite good compared with the general population. However, the range of scores is wide, and some respondents have lower scores that may be concerning, suggesting that numeracy may be an issue that requires improvement for a subset of the studied cohort. Performance was superior with the unit cGy; thus, the adoption of cGy as the standard unit is reasonable.

Project description:Particularly at the beginning of their studies, international medical students face a number of language-related, social and intercultural challenges. Thus, they perform poorer than their local counterparts in written and oral examinations as well as in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) in the fields of internal medicine and surgery. It is still unknown how international students perform in an OSCE in the field of psychosocial medicine compared to their local fellow students.All students (N = 1033) taking the OSCE in the field of psychosocial medicine and an accompanying written examination in their eighth or ninth semester between 2012 and 2015 were included in the analysis. The OSCE consisted of four different stations, in which students had to perform and manage a patient encounter with simulated patients suffering from 1) post-traumatic stress disorder, 2) schizophrenia, 3) borderline personality disorder and 4) either suicidal tendency or dementia. Students were evaluated by trained lecturers using global checklists assessing specific professional domains, namely building a relationship with the patient, conversational skills, anamnesis, as well as psychopathological findings and decision-making.International medical students scored significantly poorer than their local peers (p < .001; η2 = .042). Within the specific professional domains assessed, they showed poorer scores, with differences in conversational skills showing the highest effect (p < .001; η2 = .053). No differences emerged within the multiple-choice examination (p = .127).International students showed poorer results in clinical-practical exams in the field of psychosocial medicine, with conversational skills yielding the poorest scores. However, regarding factual and practical knowledge examined via a multiple-choice test, no differences emerged between international and local students. These findings have decisive implications for relationship building in the doctor-patient relationship.

Project description:Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID-19 cases, mostly in veno-venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno-arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient's recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID-19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID-19 benefitted from ECLS.

Dataset Information

Development and pilot of an international survey: 'Radiation Therapists and Psychosocial Support'.

Introduction

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Development and pilot of an international survey: 'Radiation Therapists and Psychosocial Support'.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets