PURPOSE: Knowledge about cancer patients' preferences in health care is important because it enables care to be patient centered. However, the literature does not provide an overview. The aim of this study was to identify the dimensions of hospital-based cancer care that patients evaluate the most important using Patient-rated importance as a method. DATA SOURCE: PubMed was searched in 2013/2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were identified, if they were in accordance with specific search terms and focused on hospital-based cancer care. Totally, 11 studies were found. DATA EXTRACTION: The 11 studies comprised a total of 598 items. Of these, 592 items were categorized into 19 care dimensions. The highest rated quartile of items was identified as care elements patients evaluated to be the most important. Identification of the most important dimensions was done by calculating the percentages of items within each dimension that were within the highest quartile. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The 11 studies varied a lot in regard to aim and patient characteristics. The three most important dimensions were as follows: Rapid diagnosis and treatment; High professional standard; and Information about treatment and side(effects)/consequences. Within four dimensions, Psychosocial support, Physical facilities, Waiting time and Transparency in care, no items were within the highest quartile. CONCLUSION: Patient-rated importance was a useful method in identifying the care patients preferred. Due to a limited number of studies and great diversity within studies evaluated, interpretation of results should be cautious. However, it seems that cancer patients treated in hospitals with a curative intent find treatment-related information, professional standard and short delay of diagnosis and treatment most important.
PURPOSE: Knowledge about cancerpatients' preferences in health care is important because it enables care to be patient centered. However, the literature does not provide an overview. The aim of this study was to identify the dimensions of hospital-based cancer care that patients evaluate the most important using Patient-rated importance as a method. DATA SOURCE: PubMed was searched in 2013/2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were identified, if they were in accordance with specific search terms and focused on hospital-based cancer care. Totally, 11 studies were found. DATA EXTRACTION: The 11 studies comprised a total of 598 items. Of these, 592 items were categorized into 19 care dimensions. The highest rated quartile of items was identified as care elements patients evaluated to be the most important. Identification of the most important dimensions was done by calculating the percentages of items within each dimension that were within the highest quartile. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The 11 studies varied a lot in regard to aim and patient characteristics. The three most important dimensions were as follows: Rapid diagnosis and treatment; High professional standard; and Information about treatment and side(effects)/consequences. Within four dimensions, Psychosocial support, Physical facilities, Waiting time and Transparency in care, no items were within the highest quartile. CONCLUSION:Patient-rated importance was a useful method in identifying the care patients preferred. Due to a limited number of studies and great diversity within studies evaluated, interpretation of results should be cautious. However, it seems that cancerpatients treated in hospitals with a curative intent find treatment-related information, professional standard and short delay of diagnosis and treatment most important.
Authors: Kerri-Anne R Mitchell; Kelly J Brassil; Serena A Rodriguez; Edward Tsai; Kayo Fujimoto; Kate J Krause; L Aubree Shay; Andrew E Springer Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-08-23 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Margareth Santos Zanchetta; Marguerite Cognet; Mary Rachel Lam-Kin-Teng; Marie Elisabeth Dumitriu; Lise Renaud; Jacques Rhéaume Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Henry E Aloh; Obinna E Onwujekwe; Obianuju G Aloh; Ijeoma L Okoronkwo; Chijioke Joel Nweke Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Anne Miles; Stuart A Taylor; Ruth E C Evans; Steve Halligan; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Neil Navani; Alf Oliver; Alison Morton; Andrea Rockall; Caroline S Clarke; Stephen Morris Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christiane Rudolph; Gitte Stentebjerg Petersen; Ron Pritzkuleit; Hans Storm; Alexander Katalinic Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Anne Miles; Ruth Ec Evans; Steve Halligan; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam M Janes; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Alison Morton; Steve Morris; Andrea Rockall; Stuart A Taylor Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 1.667