L Cohen1, J Hamer1, C Helwig1, K Fergus2, A Kiss3, R Mandel1, B Dawson1, A Landsberg1, K Shein1, N Kay1, E Warner1. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 2. Division of Psychology, Patient and Family Support Program, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON; 3. Department of Research Design and Biostatistics, Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to assess patient satisfaction with pynk: Breast Cancer Program for Young Women so as to determine how the program might be improved and to provide feedback to donors. METHODS: All pynk patients who had consented to have their information entered in our database and who supplied us with their e-mail address were invited to complete a 58-item online questionnaire consisting of multiple choice and open-ended questions. Domains included demographics, provision of written and spoken information, support, infertility risk, research awareness, attitudes toward discharge, and general feedback. RESULTS: Of 120 pynk patients approached, 61 (51%) participated. More than 90% were satisfied or very satisfied with the timing, usefulness, and clarity of spoken and written information given, and 69% found the service and support provided by the nurse navigator to be the most helpful component of the program. Of those who had received systemic therapy, 93% recalled a health care provider initiating a discussion of the risk of treatment-related infertility, and 67% were referred to a fertility clinic. On the negative side, 11%-27% were unaware of various services provided by pynk, and 11% were unaware of pynk's ongoing research. One third of patients were unhappy or ambivalent about the prospect of discharge from the program. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction with this novel program for young women with breast cancer is high. This study highlights the critical role that the nurse navigator plays in patient support and dissemination of information. In contrast to other reported surveys of young cancer patients, pynk patients are routinely given the opportunity to undergo fertility preservation.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to assess patient satisfaction with pynk: Breast Cancer Program for Young Women so as to determine how the program might be improved and to provide feedback to donors. METHODS: All pynk patients who had consented to have their information entered in our database and who supplied us with their e-mail address were invited to complete a 58-item online questionnaire consisting of multiple choice and open-ended questions. Domains included demographics, provision of written and spoken information, support, infertility risk, research awareness, attitudes toward discharge, and general feedback. RESULTS: Of 120 pynk patients approached, 61 (51%) participated. More than 90% were satisfied or very satisfied with the timing, usefulness, and clarity of spoken and written information given, and 69% found the service and support provided by the nurse navigator to be the most helpful component of the program. Of those who had received systemic therapy, 93% recalled a health care provider initiating a discussion of the risk of treatment-related infertility, and 67% were referred to a fertility clinic. On the negative side, 11%-27% were unaware of various services provided by pynk, and 11% were unaware of pynk's ongoing research. One third of patients were unhappy or ambivalent about the prospect of discharge from the program. CONCLUSIONS:Patient satisfaction with this novel program for young women with breast cancer is high. This study highlights the critical role that the nurse navigator plays in patient support and dissemination of information. In contrast to other reported surveys of young cancerpatients, pynk patients are routinely given the opportunity to undergo fertility preservation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; nurse navigator; oncofertility; psychosocial interventions; support groups; young women
Authors: Olga Husson; Melissa S Y Thong; Floortje Mols; Simone Oerlemans; Adrian A Kaptein; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Vered Stearns; Bryan Schneider; N Lynn Henry; Daniel F Hayes; David A Flockhart Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2006-10-12 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Stephanie J Lee; Leslie R Schover; Ann H Partridge; Pasquale Patrizio; W Hamish Wallace; Karen Hagerty; Lindsay N Beck; Lawrence V Brennan; Kutluk Oktay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James D Harrison; Jane M Young; Melanie A Price; Phyllis N Butow; Michael J Solomon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: M van den Berg; S Nadesapillai; D D M Braat; R P M G Hermens; C C M Beerendonk Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 3.603