Lisa M Hess1, Gerhardt Pohl2. 1. Dr Hess is Principal Research Scientist, US Health Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, and Adjunct Professor, Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis. 2. Dr Pohl is Research Advisor, Statistics, Global Patient Outcomes and Real World Evidence, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with cancer annually. There is an increasing demand for high-quality cancer care; however, what constitutes quality care is not well defined. There remains a gap in our knowledge regarding the current perceptions of what defines quality care. OBJECTIVE: To review the current understanding and perspectives of key stakeholders regarding quality cancer care for adult patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy-based treatment regimens. METHODS: This systematic qualitative literature review involved a search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases for articles that were published between January 2009 and May 2013 using a predefined search strategy with specific Medical Subject Headings terms encompassing 3 core concepts-cancer, chemotherapy, and quality of healthcare. Articles were eligible to be included if they focused on adult cancers, discussed quality indicators of cancer care or quality of care in the article's body, discussed treating cancer with chemotherapy, were conducted in the United States and with US respondents, and reported data about cancer quality that were obtained directly from stakeholders (eg, patients, caregivers, providers, payers, other healthcare professionals). Thematic analyses were conducted to assess the perspectives and the intersection of quality care issues from each stakeholder group that was identified, including patients, providers, and thought leaders. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 542 articles that were reviewed for eligibility. Of these articles, 15 were eligible for inclusion in the study and reported perspectives from a total of 4934 participants. Patients with cancer, as well as providers, noted information needs, psychosocial support, responsibility for care, and coordination of care as important aspects of quality care. Providers also reported the importance of equity in cancer care and reimbursement concerns, whereas patients with cancer considered the timeliness of care an important factor. The perspectives of thought leaders focused on barriers to and facilitators of quality care. CONCLUSION: Thematic elements related to cancer quality were relatively consistent between patients and providers; no additional information was found regarding payer perspectives. The perspectives of these groups are important to consider as quality initiatives are being developed.
BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with cancer annually. There is an increasing demand for high-quality cancer care; however, what constitutes quality care is not well defined. There remains a gap in our knowledge regarding the current perceptions of what defines quality care. OBJECTIVE: To review the current understanding and perspectives of key stakeholders regarding quality cancer care for adult patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy-based treatment regimens. METHODS: This systematic qualitative literature review involved a search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases for articles that were published between January 2009 and May 2013 using a predefined search strategy with specific Medical Subject Headings terms encompassing 3 core concepts-cancer, chemotherapy, and quality of healthcare. Articles were eligible to be included if they focused on adult cancers, discussed quality indicators of cancer care or quality of care in the article's body, discussed treating cancer with chemotherapy, were conducted in the United States and with US respondents, and reported data about cancer quality that were obtained directly from stakeholders (eg, patients, caregivers, providers, payers, other healthcare professionals). Thematic analyses were conducted to assess the perspectives and the intersection of quality care issues from each stakeholder group that was identified, including patients, providers, and thought leaders. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 542 articles that were reviewed for eligibility. Of these articles, 15 were eligible for inclusion in the study and reported perspectives from a total of 4934 participants. Patients with cancer, as well as providers, noted information needs, psychosocial support, responsibility for care, and coordination of care as important aspects of quality care. Providers also reported the importance of equity in cancer care and reimbursement concerns, whereas patients with cancer considered the timeliness of care an important factor. The perspectives of thought leaders focused on barriers to and facilitators of quality care. CONCLUSION: Thematic elements related to cancer quality were relatively consistent between patients and providers; no additional information was found regarding payer perspectives. The perspectives of these groups are important to consider as quality initiatives are being developed.
Authors: Aimee Kendall Roundtree; Sharon H Giordano; Andrea Price; Maria E Suarez-Almazor Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-12-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Genevieve M Boland; George J Chang; Alex B Haynes; Yi-Ju Chiang; Ryaz Chagpar; Yan Xing; Chung-Yuan Hu; Barry W Feig; Y Nancy You; Janice N Cormier Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karen G Scandrett; Eva B Reitschuler-Cross; Lauren Nelson; J Alex Sanger; Maia Feigon; Elizabeth Boyd; Chih-Hung Chang; Judith A Paice; Joshua M Hauser; Alexey Chamkin; Paul Balfour; Alexei Stolbunov; Charles L Bennett; Linda L Emanuel Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Leah Tuzzio; Cheryl J Wiese; Beth Kirlin; Sarah M Greene; Steven B Clauser; Edward H Wagner Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nikhil G Thaker; Thomas J Pugh; Usama Mahmood; Seungtaek Choi; Tracy E Spinks; Neil E Martin; Terence T Sio; Rajat J Kudchadker; Robert S Kaplan; Deborah A Kuban; David A Swanson; Peter F Orio; Michael J Zelefsky; Brett W Cox; Louis Potters; Thomas A Buchholz; Thomas W Feeley; Steven J Frank Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Angela M Stover; Benjamin Y Urick; Allison M Deal; Randall Teal; Maihan B Vu; Jessica Carda-Auten; Jennifer Jansen; Arlene E Chung; Antonia V Bennett; Anne Chiang; Charles Cleeland; Yehuda Deutsch; Edmund Tai; Dylan Zylla; Loretta A Williams; Collette Pitzen; Claire Snyder; Bryce Reeve; Tenbroeck Smith; Kristen McNiff; David Cella; Michael N Neuss; Robert Miller; Thomas M Atkinson; Patricia A Spears; Mary Lou Smith; Cindy Geoghegan; Ethan M Basch Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-02-19
Authors: Eric E Seiber; Fabian Camacho; Muhammad Fazal Zeeshan; Teresa T Kern; Steven T Fleming Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Rittal Mehta; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Anghela Z Paredes; Kota Sahara; Mary Dillhoff; Jordan M Cloyd; Aslam Ejaz; Susan White; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Martien J P van Bussel; Gaby J Odekerken-Schröder; Carol Ou; Rachelle R Swart; Maria J G Jacobs Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Bojoura Schouten; Bert Avau; Geertruida Trudy E Bekkering; Patrick Vankrunkelsven; Jeroen Mebis; Johan Hellings; Ann Van Hecke Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-03-26
Authors: Martina Kamradt; Ines Baudendistel; Gerda Längst; Marion Kiel; Felicitas Eckrich; Eva Winkler; Joachim Szecsenyi; Dominik Ose Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 2.267