Anthony M Rossi1,2, Joseph Sobanko3, Naomi Lawrence4,5, Jeremy Bordeaux6, Todd Cartee7, Eric S Armbrecht8, Anit Behera8, Christian L Baum9, Murad Alam10, Ian A Maher11. 1. Dermatology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 3. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Center for Dermatologic Surgery, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, New Jersey. 5. Department of Dermatology, Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey. 6. Department of Dermatology, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Penn State Health, Hershey, Pennsylvania. 8. Saint Louis University Center for Health Outcomes Research, St. Louis, Missouri. 9. Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 11. Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Success in skin cancer treatment is determined through outcome measurement. Patients and physicians may prioritize different outcomes of care, and identification of such may enhance patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: To identify gaps between patient and physician attitudes toward skin cancer outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-day, 21-patient, modified, in-person Delphi process to solicit and rate the importance of skin cancer-related outcomes was conducted. Twelve masked dermatologic surgeons rated patient-generated outcomes in a 2-round modified Delphi process. Each item was rated on a 1 to 9 scale (1, least important; 9, most important) using the Qualtrics web platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Results of the physician ratings were compared with the patient ratings. RESULTS: A list of 53 skin cancer treatment-related themes and outcomes was generated. Eight items were ranked by physicians as "very high" (>80% importance), 5 as "high" (>70% importance), 19 as intermediate, and 21 as low. The physician and patient panels' ratings were concordant for 56% of items, whereas 7 outcome items showed a 2-category discordance. CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients were concordant regarding skin cancer treatment on multiple spheres. Areas of discordance include patient fear of unknown future risk, recurrence, or empowering patients to make treatment choices, and may be areas of continued improvement for delivery of patient-centered care.
BACKGROUND: Success in skin cancer treatment is determined through outcome measurement. Patients and physicians may prioritize different outcomes of care, and identification of such may enhance patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: To identify gaps between patient and physician attitudes toward skin cancer outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-day, 21-patient, modified, in-person Delphi process to solicit and rate the importance of skin cancer-related outcomes was conducted. Twelve masked dermatologic surgeons rated patient-generated outcomes in a 2-round modified Delphi process. Each item was rated on a 1 to 9 scale (1, least important; 9, most important) using the Qualtrics web platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Results of the physician ratings were compared with the patient ratings. RESULTS: A list of 53 skin cancer treatment-related themes and outcomes was generated. Eight items were ranked by physicians as "very high" (>80% importance), 5 as "high" (>70% importance), 19 as intermediate, and 21 as low. The physician and patient panels' ratings were concordant for 56% of items, whereas 7 outcome items showed a 2-category discordance. CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients were concordant regarding skin cancer treatment on multiple spheres. Areas of discordance include patient fear of unknown future risk, recurrence, or empowering patients to make treatment choices, and may be areas of continued improvement for delivery of patient-centered care.
Authors: Barbara L Conner-Spady; Claudia Sanmartin; Geoffrey H Johnston; John J McGurran; Melissa Kehler; Tom W Noseworthy Journal: Health Policy Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Maarten Boers; John R Kirwan; Laure Gossec; Philip G Conaghan; Maria-Antonietta D'Agostino; Clifton O Bingham; Peter M Brooks; Robert Landewé; Lyn March; Lee Simon; Jasvinder A Singh; Vibeke Strand; George A Wells; Peter Tugwell Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Alice B Gottlieb; Adriane A Levin; April W Armstrong; April Abernethy; Kristina Callis Duffin; Reva Bhushan; Amit Garg; Joseph F Merola; Mara Maccarone; Robin Christensen Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 11.527