Dataset Information

Challenges and Learning Needs for Providers of Advanced Cancer Care: Focus Group Interviews with Physicians and Nurses.

ABSTRACT: Background: Implementation of integrated oncology and palliative care improves patient outcomes but may represent a demanding task for health care providers (HCPs). Objective: To explore physicians' and nurses' perceived challenges and learning needs in their care for patients with advanced cancer, and to analyze how these perceptions can provide insight on how to improve care for patients with advanced cancer in an integrated care model. Methods: Residents in oncology, oncologists, nurses, and palliative care physicians were recruited to participate in focus group interviews. Six focus group interviews were conducted with 35 informants. Data were analyzed according to principles of thematic analysis. Results: The discussions in the interviews concerned three broad themes: an emphasis on patients' best interest, perceived as hindered by two sets of barriers; unsatisfactory organizational conditions such as time pressure, lack of referral routines, and few arenas for interdisciplinary collaboration, was perceived as one barrier. The other barrier was related to the appraisal of other HCPs' clinical practices. Participating HCPs expressed in general a positive self-view, but were more critical of other HCPs. Conclusion: Currently, implementation of measures to improve care for patients with advanced cancer appears to be challenging due to cultural and organizational factors, and how HCPs perceive themselves and other HCPs. HCPs' perception of challenges in patient care as not related to themselves (externalization) might be an essential obstacle. Interventions targeting both HCP-related and organizational factors are needed. Particularly important are measures aimed at reducing fragmentation and improving collaboration in care.

SUBMITTER: Lundeby T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8241352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN:Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS:Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS:Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS:A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a disparity in the burden of gynaecological cancer for Indigenous women compared with non-Indigenous women in Australia. Understanding how Indigenous women currently experience gynaecological cancer care services and factors that impact on their engagement with care is critical. This study explored Indigenous Australian women's experience of gynaecological cancer care at a major metropolitan hospital in Queensland.MethodsIndigenous women receiving care at a major metropolitan Queensland hospital for investigation or diagnosis of gynaecological cancer were invited to participate in a larger longitudinal study exploring women's experiences of gynaecological cancer care. This component was an in-depth, qualitative interview exploring the women's experiences of hospital care at approximately three-month post initial referral. A peer-approach was used to interview women. Hospital-based care providers involved in the care of Indigenous gynaecological cancer patients were invited to be interviewed. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed using an interpretative phenomenological approach enabling a multi-layered, contextualised understanding of the patients' experience and their interaction with tertiary cancer services.ResultsEight Indigenous patients and 18 care providers were interviewed. Analysis of all interviews revealed four broad issues affecting Indigenous patients' early experiences of care: (1) navigating the system, impacted by timely diagnosis, access to support services and follow up; (2) communication and decision-making, patients' decision-making, efficacy of doctor-patient communication, and patients' knowledge about cancer; (3) coping with treatment demands, was impacted by emotional stress, access to services and support by hospital staff; and (4) feeling welcome and safe in the hospital, impacted by patients' relationship with care providers and their access to culturally-safe services. The combination of factors impacting these women's' experience of gynaecological care commonly left these women at breaking point, often with limited access to information, resources or support.ConclusionsOur findings revealed that experiences of cancer care for Indigenous women are overlain by challenges associated with late referral, misdiagnosis, miscommunication, lack of information, logistics in accessing treatment and services and system cultural insensitivities. Our findings offer insights that can inform cancer care provision to more effectively support Indigenous women accessing gynaecological cancer services.

Project description:PurposeInformation regarding patients’ needs, fears and experiences/perceptions in the perioperative setting is limited. Through two focus groups, we explored the needs, fears and experiences of patients who had recently undergone, or were scheduled for, surgery under general anaesthesia, with regard to the entire perioperative process.Materials and MethodsAdults were invited to participate in a focus group if they had (a) undergone abdominal or gynaecological surgery with general anaesthesia in the past 4 months (focus group 1) or (b) been indicated for abdominal or gynaecological surgery and were waiting for the assigned surgery date (focus group 2). Discussions were audio recorded and, through thematic analysis, patients’ needs and experiences/perceptions regarding perioperative surgical stages were obtained/coded. Analysis of code co-occurrence was performed using a codes matrix.ResultsFocus groups consisted of 13 females, 1 male (50% aged >45 years). The immediate postoperative period generated the highest number of co-occurrences, followed by the indication of surgery. The most frequent code was the need for information, especially at the indication of surgery, the pre-anaesthesia clinic and in the postoperative period. Fears were described particularly at the indication of surgery, the waiting period, the surgical room, anaesthesia induction and the postoperative period, particularly after hospital discharge; pain was cited most commonly in the postoperative period. Stress/anxiety and emotional impact were also cited in the postoperative period including home arrival.ConclusionInformation collected in these patients’ focus groups should inform future research and healthcare planning. Patients demand receiving more comprehensive and understandable information and more involvement in several steps; this could reduce fears and stress/anxiety described across the perioperative process. Importantly, findings also extend to the postoperative period and home arrival.

Dataset Information

Challenges and Learning Needs for Providers of Advanced Cancer Care: Focus Group Interviews with Physicians and Nurses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets