Understanding the Attitudes and Beliefs of Oncologists Regarding the Transitioning and Sharing of Survivorship Care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coschi CH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8700375 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Recent cancer care delivery models and clinical practice guidelines have expanded the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in routine follow-up of cancer survivors. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of PCPs affiliated with a large healthcare system to (1) examine practices, attitudes, and beliefs regarding preparedness to provide survivorship care and (2) explore predictors of confidence managing cancer survivors. We distributed a self-administered online survey to 1069 clinical affiliates providing primary care services within the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system. Associations between PCPs' professional characteristics and attitudes and preparedness were evaluated. Multiple logistic regression explored predictors of confidence monitoring common cancer treatment-related symptoms. One hundred twenty-seven eligible PCPs responded. The sample was split between academic and community practice (48.0% vs. 52.0%, respectively), predominantly comprised of physicians (81.8%), and 64.6% had > 15 years direct patient care experience. The majority agreed that PCPs play a valuable role in surveillance and adverse event monitoring in survivors, though less than 25% felt their professional training prepared them to perform each of these domains. Physicians were significantly more likely than advanced practice providers to be among the 65% of PCPs who were confident monitoring ≥ 1 symptom in each of the 5 evaluated symptom clusters (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.2-10.8). PCPs appear willing to assume an enhanced role in cancer survivorship care but feel unprepared to do so. Enhanced training and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines are needed to facilitate effective implementation of PCP-delivered survivorship care.
| S-EPMC8266289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cancer Rehabilitation (CR) is an emerging field in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. Current literature highlights the effectiveness of cancer rehabilitation in improving functional outcomes, shorter length of hospital stay, and improved quality of life. Despite this, there are very few formalized CR programs across all of North America. We conducted a survey at a tertiary cancer center without a formalized CR program to assess the perceived need of such a program and its potential development. This survey of medical, surgical, radiation and pediatric oncologists demonstrated that 92.3% of 39 respondents felt CR was somewhat to very important, particularly for their patients' issues of fatigue, deconditioning, pain management and disposition planning. These findings highlight the value seen by oncologists in the need for further cancer rehabilitation access and formalized program development in order to meet patient needs for improving functional deficits, activities of daily living and quality of life.
| S-EPMC6880796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe growing number of cancer survivors combined with a looming shortage of oncology specialists will require greater coordination of post-treatment care responsibilities between oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs). However, data are limited regarding these physicians' views of cancer survivors' care.ObjectiveTo compare PCPs and oncologists with regard to their knowledge, attitudes, and practices for follow-up care of breast and colon cancer survivors.Design and subjectsMailed questionnaires were completed by a nationally representative sample of 1,072 PCPs and 1,130 medical oncologists in 2009 (cooperation rate = 65%). Sampling and non-response weights were used to calculate estimates to reflect practicing US PCPs and oncologists.Main measuresPCPs and oncologists reported their 1) preferred model for delivering cancer survivors' care; 2) assessment of PCPs' ability to perform follow-up care tasks; 3) confidence in their knowledge; and 4) cancer surveillance practices.Key resultsCompared with PCPs, oncologists were less likely to believe PCPs had the skills to conduct appropriate testing for breast cancer recurrence (59% vs. 23%, P < 0.001) or to care for late effects of breast cancer (75% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). Only 40% of PCPs were very confident of their own knowledge of testing for recurrence. PCPs were more likely than oncologists to endorse routine use of non-recommended blood and imaging tests for detecting cancer recurrence, with both groups departing substantially from guideline recommendations.ConclusionThere are significant differences in PCPs' and oncologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to care of cancer survivors. Improving cancer survivors' care may require more effective communication between these two groups to increase PCPs' confidence in their knowledge, and must also address oncologists' attitudes regarding PCPs' ability to care for cancer survivors.
| S-EPMC3235622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Palliative care teams face complex medical situations on a daily basis. These situations require joint reflection and decision making to propose appropriate patient care. Sometimes, sedation is one of the options to be considered. In addition to medical and technical criteria justifying the use of sedation, multiple psychosocial criteria impact the decision making of palliative care teams and guide, give sense to, and legitimize professional practices. Objective: The main goal of this study was to explore perceptions, experiences, and beliefs of palliative care teams about sedation practices in a legislative context (Claeys-Leonetti law, 2016; France), which authorizes continuous deep sedation (CDS) until death. Methods: This is a qualitative study using 28 semistructured interviews with physicians and nurses working in a palliative care team in France (PACA region). All verbal productions produced during interviews were fully transcribed and the contents analyzed. Findings: Content analysis revealed four themes: (1) sedation as a "good death," (2) emotional experiences of sedations, (3) the practice of CDS, and (4) the ambiguous relationship with the Claeys-Leonetti law. Conclusions: This qualitative study provides evidence of a form of "naturalization" of the practice of sedation. However, the Claeys-Leonetti law exacerbates differences of opinion between palliative caregivers on sedation and questions the interest of this law for society and palliative care practices. clinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04016038.
| S-EPMC8241398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProvider recommendation is a significant predictor of HPV vaccine uptake. Prior research suggests that concerns regarding risk compensation could cause some providers to hesitate recommending the HPV vaccine.MethodsDuring 15-30 minute semi-structured interviews in early 2015, 22 U.S. pediatric providers were asked about their beliefs regarding sexual risk compensation and cervical cancer screening following HPV vaccination. Providers were asked if these beliefs result in reservations recommending the vaccine. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis.ResultsNone of the providers believed the HPV vaccine would result in risky sexual behavior. Half indicated it was better to start vaccination early, before sexual activity was a worry. Others noted that patients' risky behavior decisions happen independently of vaccination. When providers were asked if they were concerned about decreased cervical cancer screening, half said they did not know and some stated they had never thought about it before. The main themes addressed were the significant time lapse between vaccination and screening and that women tend to get over-screened as opposed to under-screened.ConclusionProviders were generally in favor of HPV vaccination and do not perceive risk compensation as a barrier to HPV recommendation.
| S-EPMC4946644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInfertility is a critical late toxicity that impacts adolescent and young adult (AYA, ages 15-39 years) cancer survivors. International oncology societies recommend discussing fertility preservation (FP) for all AYA patients, regardless of stage or prognosis. We aim to understand Canadian medical oncologists' perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge toward FP and pregnancy in patients with cancer, including advanced stages and high risk for recurrence.MethodsAn anonymous electronic survey utilizing hypothetical scenarios was sent to medical oncologists in the province of Ontario, Canada. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize all data. Logistic regression models were constructed to identify factors that predicted FP discussions and referrals.ResultsThe survey was received by 91 medical oncologists, and the response rate was 44%. Fifty-eight percent of respondents offer FP for all patients. Physicians are more likely to refer patients for FP before curative intent therapy than before palliative chemotherapy (95% vs. 39.5%, p < 0.001). Most respondents (86%) are comfortable discussing FP; however, only 31% self-reported feeling up-to-date on knowledge of current FP methods. Female physicians were more likely to report up-to-date knowledge and confidence discussing FP with patients. Forty percent of respondents identified that concerns about the welfare of the resulting offspring should not be a cause for denying patients assistance in reproduction.ConclusionThere is a significant difference in physician attitude toward offering FP based on the cancer stage. Increased awareness of standard of care guidelines and resources for difficult situations may improve the frequency of discussions about FP in motivated cancer patients.
| S-EPMC9883564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians' work is educating their patients, people's concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people's perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient's disease.DesignWe recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient's ability to manage their disease, and the patient's trust in doctors.ResultsParticipants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient's diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3).ConclusionsParticipants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients' concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education.HighlightsUnderstanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians.People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively.Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care.
| S-EPMC11346123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of psychosocial issues affecting patients with kidney failure.ObjectiveWe sought to examine Canadian nephrologists' attitudes and opinions regarding the importance of renal patient psychosocial care, nephrologists' roles, and experience with psychosocial care in addition to what barriers, if any, prevent these physicians from providing psychosocial care to their patients.DesignA self-administered, survey questionnaire.SettingOnline.SampleCanadian Society of Nephrology members who predominantly work in clinical care with adult, in-center hemodialysis patients.MeasurementsMeasurements of the survey include demographics, training, and nephrologists' opinions regarding their role in administering psychosocial care, potential administrative and patient time constraints, accessibility of other health care workers for this activity, and factors that influence or impede physicians' ability to address their patients' psychosocial needs.MethodsA self-administered survey was sent to almost 500 members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology between November 2018 and December 2018. The survey questionnaire was designed to gather opinions and attitudes on psychosocial care delivery as well as potential influencing factors on nephrologists' ability to provide this care. A univariate statistical analysis was used to analyze survey responses.ResultsA total of 30 nephrologists responded to the survey, generating a 6% response rate. Respondents varied across provinces, with the majority being staff nephrologists (80%). While over 94% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that focus on psychosocial care improves patient outcomes, only 43% felt that staff nephrologists were suited to provide this care to patients; 97% of respondents believed social workers to be the most suited to provide this. Lack of additional supporting health care members, the need for additional training, too many administrative duties, and empathy fatigue were some of the predominant barriers respondents felt prevented them from addressing the psychosocial care of their patients.LimitationsA low response rate for the survey was obtained, roughly 6%, limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Survey answers by respondents may be different from those by nonrespondents. Answers may be subject to social desirability and/or selection bias.ConclusionNephrologists believe that the current psychosocial care of patients in hemodialysis units is inadequate. However, further research is necessary to elucidate the barriers nephrologists face in providing psychosocial care and the changes required to most effectively implement optimal psychosocial care for patients with kidney failure in hemodialysis units.
| S-EPMC8361505 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe first-line contact for patients seeking care for low back pain (LBP) can potentially change the disease course. The beliefs and attitudes of healthcare providers (HCPs) can influence LBP management. Although referring patients with LBP to physical therapy is common, the first-line contact for patients with LBP in Saudi Arabia is the primary care physician (PCP). Physical therapy will soon be integrated into primary care; therefore, it is rational to compare physical therapists' (PTs) beliefs and attitudes regarding LBP with those of PCPs.ObjectiveWe compared PCPs' and PTs' attitudes and beliefs regarding LBP management.MethodsWe employed a cross-sectional, voluntary response sample research design using the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS). Participants were PTs and PCPs practicing in Saudi Arabia.ResultsIn total, 153 participants completed the PABS (111 PTs and 52 PCPs). PCPs demonstrated significantly higher PABS biomedical subscale scores than did the PTs.ConclusionsHCPs in Saudi Arabia should receive additional training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach to managing LBP. In this study, the HCPs' treatment recommendations may not correspond with contemporary clinical guidelines. Research to facilitate the implementation of optimal professional education and training to adopt a biopsychosocial approach is an urgent priority.
| S-EPMC9398080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWith the increasingly permissive legal and social environments regarding marijuana, it is important to understand prenatal marijuana use from the perspective of women who use marijuana. Our objective was to qualitatively describe the marijuana use experiences, beliefs, and attitudes of women who used marijuana during pregnancy.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with pregnant women who had either reported current marijuana use or had urine testing positive for marijuana. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed for patterns and themes.ResultsTwenty-five pregnant women who used marijuana during their pregnancies participated in our study interviews. Main themes that emerged from the interviews were that women: 1) reported higher amounts of marijuana use prior to pregnancy and attempted to reduce their use once they realized they were pregnant; 2) used marijuana to help with nausea and appetite changes during pregnancy or to improve mood; 3) described marijuana as "natural" and "safe" compared to other substances such as alcohol, tobacco, other recreational drugs, and prescribed medications; 4) had conflicting opinions regarding whether marijuana was addictive; and 5) were uncertain but had some concerns regarding potential risks of prenatal marijuana use.ConclusionPregnant women who used marijuana in pregnancy held contradictory beliefs about continued use; they reported trying to reduce usage and were worried about potential risks, but also felt that marijuana is more natural and safer than other substances, including prescribed medicines. These findings have implications for how practitioners address prenatal marijuana use and highlight the need for further research on developmental outcomes.
| S-EPMC6756431 | biostudies-literature