BACKGROUND: Patient-reported quality of care, which is often measured by patients' overall rating of care, is gaining more attention within the field of oncology. The aim of this study was to examine factors that determine adult cancer patients' overall rating of prediagnosis care (PDC) and care provided during treatment (CDT). METHODS: Data were collected from 2 recurrent nationwide surveys among adult cancer patients in Denmark in 2010 and 2012. Analyses regarding PDC were based on the 2010 study population (n = 3681), and CDT analyses were based on the 2012 follow-up population (n = 2315). Multivariable logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS: Overall, 55.1% of patients reported excellent PDC and 61.9% reported excellent CDT. The odds of rating PDC and CDT as excellent differed significantly according to sex, age, and cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, the extent of supportive relatives, comorbidity, self-reported health, and region of treatment significantly determined ratings of CDT. Patients who reported negative experiences related to waiting time, information, coordination, and continuity of care during PDC and CDT, respectively, were significantly less likely overall to rate their care as excellent. The final regression models for PDC and CDT explained 38.2% and 30.6%, respectively, of the variance in the overall rating. CONCLUSION: Learning how patient characteristics influence the overall rating of care can enable health care providers to accommodate vulnerable patient groups. Identification of health care aspects that are independently associated with the overall rating of care may enable targeted efforts when planning and prioritizing initiatives aimed at improving the patient-experienced quality of care. Cancer 2017;123:2918-26.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported quality of care, which is often measured by patients' overall rating of care, is gaining more attention within the field of oncology. The aim of this study was to examine factors that determine adult cancerpatients' overall rating of prediagnosis care (PDC) and care provided during treatment (CDT). METHODS: Data were collected from 2 recurrent nationwide surveys among adult cancerpatients in Denmark in 2010 and 2012. Analyses regarding PDC were based on the 2010 study population (n = 3681), and CDT analyses were based on the 2012 follow-up population (n = 2315). Multivariable logistic regression models were applied. RESULTS: Overall, 55.1% of patients reported excellent PDC and 61.9% reported excellent CDT. The odds of rating PDC and CDT as excellent differed significantly according to sex, age, and cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, the extent of supportive relatives, comorbidity, self-reported health, and region of treatment significantly determined ratings of CDT. Patients who reported negative experiences related to waiting time, information, coordination, and continuity of care during PDC and CDT, respectively, were significantly less likely overall to rate their care as excellent. The final regression models for PDC and CDT explained 38.2% and 30.6%, respectively, of the variance in the overall rating. CONCLUSION: Learning how patient characteristics influence the overall rating of care can enable health care providers to accommodate vulnerable patient groups. Identification of health care aspects that are independently associated with the overall rating of care may enable targeted efforts when planning and prioritizing initiatives aimed at improving the patient-experienced quality of care. Cancer 2017;123:2918-26.
Authors: Alfons Hervàs; Raquel Montraveta; Sara Corral; Laura Pintado; Teo Baeza; Anna Arnau; Alba Vall Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Peter Esser; Leon Sautier; Susanne Sarkar; Georgia Schilling; Carsten Bokemeyer; Uwe Koch; Michael Friedrich; Gautier Defossez; Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Alix Hall; Jamie Bryant; Robert Sanson-Fisher; Alice Grady; Anthony Proietto; Christopher M Doran Journal: Patient Relat Outcome Meas Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: Fahad D Alosaimi; Futoon S Alsaleh; Luluh Y Alsughayer; Lamees A Altamimi; Ibrahim A Alfurayh; Nashwa M Abdel-Aziz; Khalid A Alsaleh Journal: Saudi Pharm J Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.562
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