Yvonne Nartey1, Iain Stewart2, Aamir Khakwani3, Vanessa Beattie4, Andrew Wilcock5, Ian Woolhouse6, Paul Beckett7, Richard B Hubbard3, Laila J Tata3. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Clinical Science Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. Electronic address: yvonne.nartey@nottingham.ac.uk. 2. Division of Respiratory Medicine, University of Nottingham, Clinical Science Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. 3. Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Clinical Science Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. 4. Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool, L9 7AL, UK. 5. Hayward House, Nottingham University Hospitals and University of Nottingham, UK. 6. Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2GW, UK. 7. University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Uttoxeter Road, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare systems increasingly recognise the importance of service users' perspectives for improving care organisation and delivery. The English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) is carried out annually, however, its representativeness within cancer types is unknown. We have explored if the CPES results are representative of people with lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We linked cancer registry data across multiple sources to assess how CPES represents sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the National Lung Cancer Audit population, accounting for post-sampling mortality bias. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare people included and not included in CPES. RESULTS: Of 240,375 people diagnosed (2009-2015), 15,967 (7 %) were included in CPES. Gender and ethnicity were reasonably represented, as were sociodemographic and clinical groupings, although more received anti-cancer treatment (96 % of CPES respondents vs. 56 % of patients nationally; adjusted odds ratio = 10.3, 95 % confidence interval 9.4-11.2 for any anti-cancer treatment) with chemotherapy most over-represented, followed by surgery and then radiotherapy. CPES under-represented older, more socioeconomically deprived, and certain clinical groups, including those with worse performance status, multiple comorbidities, and diagnosis via emergency presentation. CONCLUSION: CPES includes patients across the sociodemographic and clinical spectrum indicating its value for research and service planning. Unbalanced representation of incident lung cancer cases is a limitation that must be considered in context of using CPES findings to implement service changes. Although half the national lung cancer population who received no anti-cancer treatment do not have their experiences represented, the strength of this dataset is in providing detailed comparisons of patient experiences across different treatment groups.
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare systems increasingly recognise the importance of service users' perspectives for improving care organisation and delivery. The English CancerPatient Experience Survey (CPES) is carried out annually, however, its representativeness within cancer types is unknown. We have explored if the CPES results are representative of people with lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We linked cancer registry data across multiple sources to assess how CPES represents sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the National Lung Cancer Audit population, accounting for post-sampling mortality bias. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare people included and not included in CPES. RESULTS: Of 240,375 people diagnosed (2009-2015), 15,967 (7 %) were included in CPES. Gender and ethnicity were reasonably represented, as were sociodemographic and clinical groupings, although more received anti-cancer treatment (96 % of CPES respondents vs. 56 % of patients nationally; adjusted odds ratio = 10.3, 95 % confidence interval 9.4-11.2 for any anti-cancer treatment) with chemotherapy most over-represented, followed by surgery and then radiotherapy. CPES under-represented older, more socioeconomically deprived, and certain clinical groups, including those with worse performance status, multiple comorbidities, and diagnosis via emergency presentation. CONCLUSION: CPES includes patients across the sociodemographic and clinical spectrum indicating its value for research and service planning. Unbalanced representation of incident lung cancer cases is a limitation that must be considered in context of using CPES findings to implement service changes. Although half the national lung cancer population who received no anti-cancer treatment do not have their experiences represented, the strength of this dataset is in providing detailed comparisons of patient experiences across different treatment groups.
Authors: Colin R Lindsay; Emily C Shaw; David A Moore; Doris Rassl; Mariam Jamal-Hanjani; Nicola Steele; Salma Naheed; Craig Dick; Fiona Taylor; Helen Adderley; Fiona Black; Yvonne Summers; Matt Evans; Alexandra Rice; Aurelie Fabre; William A Wallace; Siobhan Nicholson; Alex Haragan; Phillipe Taniere; Andrew G Nicholson; Gavin Laing; Judith Cave; Martin D Forster; Fiona Blackhall; John Gosney; Sanjay Popat; Keith M Kerr Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Shantelle Smith; Margaret Brand; Susan Harden; Lisa Briggs; Lillian Leigh; Fraser Brims; Mark Brooke; Vanessa N Brunelli; Collin Chia; Paul Dawkins; Ross Lawrenson; Mary Duffy; Sue Evans; Tracy Leong; Henry Marshall; Dainik Patel; Nick Pavlakis; Jennifer Philip; Nicole Rankin; Nimit Singhal; Emily Stone; Rebecca Tay; Shalini Vinod; Morgan Windsor; Gavin M Wright; David Leong; John Zalcberg; Rob G Stirling Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-29 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Yvonne Nartey; Laila J Tata; Aamir Khakwani; Vanessa Beattie; Paul Beckett; Richard B Hubbard; Iain Stewart Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.359