Elizabeth J Siembida1, Nina S Kadan-Lottick2, Kerry Moss3, Keith M Bellizzi4. 1. Department of Human Development of Family Studies, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. Electronic address: elizabeth.siembida@nih.gov. 2. Section of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Hartford, CT, USA; University of Connecticut's School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA. 4. Department of Human Development of Family Studies, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A lack of focus on variation in engagement among cancer populations of differing developmental stages led us to examine the associations between patient engagement, the patient-provider relationship, cognitive development, readiness to transition to adulthood (transitional readiness) and perceived quality of care. METHODS: A sample of 101 adolescent cancer patients (diagnosed 10-20 years) completed survey items concerning patient engagement, dimensions of the patient-provider relationship, cognitive development, transitional readiness, and demographic characteristics using an iPad/tablet during a routine clinic visit. RESULTS: Patient engagement was not significantly associated with perceived quality of care (b = .02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.11). Instead, adolescents with providers that supported their independence (b = .34, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.52) were significantly more likely to perceive higher quality care. CONCLUSION: Supportive patient-provider relationships are an integral part of adolescents' perceptions of quality of care. Adolescents are still gaining important skills for navigating the medical system, and the patient-provider relationship may provide an important scaffolding relationship to help adolescents build independence in their treatment experience. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Identifying potential mechanisms through which adolescents can provide their opinion, ask questions, and participate in their treatment plan will help in supporting adolescent independence and improve quality of care. Published by Elsevier B.V.
OBJECTIVES: A lack of focus on variation in engagement among cancer populations of differing developmental stages led us to examine the associations between patient engagement, the patient-provider relationship, cognitive development, readiness to transition to adulthood (transitional readiness) and perceived quality of care. METHODS: A sample of 101 adolescent cancerpatients (diagnosed 10-20 years) completed survey items concerning patient engagement, dimensions of the patient-provider relationship, cognitive development, transitional readiness, and demographic characteristics using an iPad/tablet during a routine clinic visit. RESULTS:Patient engagement was not significantly associated with perceived quality of care (b = .02, 95% CI: -0.06, 0.11). Instead, adolescents with providers that supported their independence (b = .34, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.52) were significantly more likely to perceive higher quality care. CONCLUSION: Supportive patient-provider relationships are an integral part of adolescents' perceptions of quality of care. Adolescents are still gaining important skills for navigating the medical system, and the patient-provider relationship may provide an important scaffolding relationship to help adolescents build independence in their treatment experience. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Identifying potential mechanisms through which adolescents can provide their opinion, ask questions, and participate in their treatment plan will help in supporting adolescent independence and improve quality of care. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescent cancer; Patient engagement; Patient-provider relationship; Quality of care
Authors: Rachel A Sebastian; Mary M Ramos; Scott Stumbo; Jane McGrath; Gerry Fairbrother Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Pamela S Hinds; Donna Drew; Linda L Oakes; Maryam Fouladi; Sheri L Spunt; Christopher Church; Wayne L Furman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas J Eluvathingal; Khader M Hasan; Larry Kramer; Jack M Fletcher; Linda Ewing-Cobbs Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2007-02-16 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Meaghann S Weaver; Justin N Baker; Jami S Gattuso; Deborah V Gibson; April D Sykes; Pamela S Hinds Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stephanie B Dixon; Eric J Chow; Lars Hjorth; Melissa M Hudson; Leontien C M Kremer; Lindsay M Morton; Paul C Nathan; Kirsten K Ness; Kevin C Oeffinger; Gregory T Armstrong Journal: Pediatr Clin North Am Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.278
Authors: Catherine Kafu; Juddy Wachira; Paula Braitstein; Ira Wilson; Beatrice Koech; Regina Kamene; Jennifer Knight; Becky Genberg Journal: Glob Public Health Date: 2020-10-06