BACKGROUND: Advances in communication technology have enabled new methods of delivering test results to cancer survivors. We sought to determine patient preferences regarding the use of newer technology in delivering test results during cancer surveillance. METHODS: A single institutional, cross-sectional analysis of the preferences of adult cancer survivors regarding the means (secure digital communication versus phone call or office visit) to receive surveillance test results was undertaken. RESULTS: Among 257 respondents, the average age was 59.1 years (SD 13.5) and 61.8% were female. Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (29.5%), thyroid (25.7%), breast (22.8%), and gastrointestinal (22.0%) cancer. Although patients expressed a relative preference to receive normal surveillance results via MyChart or secure e-mail, the majority preferred abnormal imaging (87.2%) or blood results (85.9%) to be communicated by in-office appointments or phone calls irrespective of age or cancer type. Patients with a college degree or higher were more likely to prefer electronic means of communication of abnormal blood results compared with a telephone call or in-person visit (odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-4.73, P < .05). In contrast, patients >65 years were more likely to express a preference for telephone or in-person communication of normal imaging results (odds ratio: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.16-3.56, P < .05) versus patients ≤65 years. Preference also varied according to malignancy type. CONCLUSION: Although many cancer patients preferred to receive "normal" surveillance results electronically, the majority preferred receiving abnormal results via direct conversation with their provider. Shifting routine communication of normal surveillance results to technology-based applications may improve patient satisfaction and decrease health care system costs.
BACKGROUND: Advances in communication technology have enabled new methods of delivering test results to cancer survivors. We sought to determine patient preferences regarding the use of newer technology in delivering test results during cancer surveillance. METHODS: A single institutional, cross-sectional analysis of the preferences of adult cancer survivors regarding the means (secure digital communication versus phone call or office visit) to receive surveillance test results was undertaken. RESULTS: Among 257 respondents, the average age was 59.1 years (SD 13.5) and 61.8% were female. Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (29.5%), thyroid (25.7%), breast (22.8%), and gastrointestinal (22.0%) cancer. Although patients expressed a relative preference to receive normal surveillance results via MyChart or secure e-mail, the majority preferred abnormal imaging (87.2%) or blood results (85.9%) to be communicated by in-office appointments or phone calls irrespective of age or cancer type. Patients with a college degree or higher were more likely to prefer electronic means of communication of abnormal blood results compared with a telephone call or in-person visit (odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-4.73, P < .05). In contrast, patients >65 years were more likely to express a preference for telephone or in-person communication of normal imaging results (odds ratio: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.16-3.56, P < .05) versus patients ≤65 years. Preference also varied according to malignancy type. CONCLUSION: Although many cancerpatients preferred to receive "normal" surveillance results electronically, the majority preferred receiving abnormal results via direct conversation with their provider. Shifting routine communication of normal surveillance results to technology-based applications may improve patient satisfaction and decrease health care system costs.
Authors: Basit Chaudhry; Jerome Wang; Shinyi Wu; Margaret Maglione; Walter Mojica; Elizabeth Roth; Sally C Morton; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-11 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ruth A Lewis; Richard D Neal; Nefyn H Williams; Barbara France; Maggie Hendry; Daphne Russell; Dyfrig A Hughes; Ian Russell; Nicholas S A Stuart; David Weller; Clare Wilkinson Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Rebecca A Snyder; Chung-Yuan Hu; Amanda Cuddy; Amanda B Francescatti; Jessica R Schumacher; Katherine Van Loon; Y Nancy You; Benjamin D Kozower; Caprice C Greenberg; Deborah Schrag; Alan Venook; Daniel McKellar; David P Winchester; George J Chang Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chen-Tan Lin; Loretta Wittevrongel; Laurie Moore; Brenda L Beaty; Stephen E Ross Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2005-08-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Stephen E Ross; Laurie A Moore; Mark A Earnest; Loretta Wittevrongel; Chen-Tan Lin Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2004-05-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; J Madison Hyer; Amblessed E Onuma; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Jet W Ankersmid; Jolanda C van Hoeve; Luc J A Strobbe; Yvonne E A van Riet; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Sabine Siesling; Constance H C Drossaert Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Carlo M Contreras; Gregory A Metzger; Joal D Beane; Priya H Dedhia; Aslam Ejaz; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Leonie T Jonker; Maarten M H Lahr; Maaike H M Oonk; Geertruida H de Bock; Barbara L van Leeuwen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-02-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ahmer Irfan; Jeremie M Lever; Mona N Fouad; Barry P Sleckman; Haller Smith; Daniel I Chu; J Bart Rose; Thomas N Wang; Sushanth Reddy Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2021-08-08 Impact factor: 3.125
Authors: Ida Barca; Daniela Novembre; Elio Giofrè; Davide Caruso; Raffaella Cordaro; Elvis Kallaverja; Francesco Ferragina; Maria Giulia Cristofaro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 3.390