PURPOSE: Oral anticancer medications (OACMs) have created new treatment opportunities, but also challenges for patients and practitioners. We aimed to compare health care provider (HCP) and patient perceptions on OACM adherence, toxicity reporting, and patient educational needs. METHODS: An online survey for HCPs and paper survey for patients were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Bivariate analysis using the χ(2) test was used for some questions. RESULTS: There were 169 HCP and 143 patient responses; 91% of patients reported taking their OACMs as prescribed more than 75% of the time, but only 40% of HCPs believed their patients were as adherent; 97% of HCPs believed patients reported their adverse effects some or most of the time; 61% of patients reported toxicities sometimes, often, or very often, but 30% never or rarely reported; 66% of HCPs believed patients did not report toxicity because of fear of treatment interruption, compared with 2% of patients. HCPs (53%) and patients (62%) both believed adverse effect tolerance was a common reason not to report. Most HCPs (70%) believed patients reported adverse effects first to a nurse. Patients seemed to report equally to nurses (42%) and oncologists (38%). Both HCPs and patients favored paper-based educational materials and call-back programs. CONCLUSION: This study highlights disparities in patient and HCP perceptions of OACM adherence principles and toxicity reporting. Opportunities for improved patient education are identified, particularly around reporting significant toxicities. Different HCPs may benefit from complimentary counseling tools to encompass the entire spectrum of patient needs and provider practice.
PURPOSE: Oral anticancer medications (OACMs) have created new treatment opportunities, but also challenges for patients and practitioners. We aimed to compare health care provider (HCP) and patient perceptions on OACM adherence, toxicity reporting, and patient educational needs. METHODS: An online survey for HCPs and paper survey for patients were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Bivariate analysis using the χ(2) test was used for some questions. RESULTS: There were 169 HCP and 143 patient responses; 91% of patients reported taking their OACMs as prescribed more than 75% of the time, but only 40% of HCPs believed their patients were as adherent; 97% of HCPs believed patients reported their adverse effects some or most of the time; 61% of patients reported toxicities sometimes, often, or very often, but 30% never or rarely reported; 66% of HCPs believed patients did not report toxicity because of fear of treatment interruption, compared with 2% of patients. HCPs (53%) and patients (62%) both believed adverse effect tolerance was a common reason not to report. Most HCPs (70%) believed patients reported adverse effects first to a nurse. Patients seemed to report equally to nurses (42%) and oncologists (38%). Both HCPs and patients favored paper-based educational materials and call-back programs. CONCLUSION: This study highlights disparities in patient and HCP perceptions of OACM adherence principles and toxicity reporting. Opportunities for improved patient education are identified, particularly around reporting significant toxicities. Different HCPs may benefit from complimentary counseling tools to encompass the entire spectrum of patient needs and provider practice.
Authors: Bernard Tawfik; Ellen Burgess; Mikaela Kosich; Shoshana Adler Jaffe; Dolores D Guest; Ursa Brown-Glaberman; V Shane Pankratz; Andrew Sussman Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: Gennaro A Paolella; Andrew D Boyd; Scott M Wirth; Sandra Cuellar; Neeta K Venepalli; Stephanie Y Crawford Journal: Pharmacy (Basel) Date: 2018-03-08
Authors: Terry C Davis; Connie L Arnold; Glenn Mills; Glenn J Lesser; W Mark Brown; Richard Schulz; Kathryn E Weaver; Pamala A Pawloski Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 4.614