Agreement between patients' and radiation oncologists' cancer diagnosis and prognosis perceptions: A cross sectional study in Japan

This study assessed agreement between radiation oncologist- and cancer patient-reported perceptions about cancer diagnosis, time since diagnosis, treatment purpose, and whether life expectancy had been discussed; and described preferences for prognosis discussions. Adult cancer patients receiving radiotherapy at a Japanese hospital were invited to complete a touchscreen tablet survey. Patient survey responses were linked and comparisons made with a survey completed by their radiation oncologist. Among 146 cancer patient-oncologist dyads, there was almost perfect agreement on cancer diagnosis (ĸ = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82–0.94), substantial agreement on time since diagnosis (ĸ = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57–0.83) and moderate agreement on whether treatment goal was curative or palliative (ĸ = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.28–0.57; all p’s < 0.0001). Agreement about whether a life expectancy discussion had occurred was less than expected by chance (κ = -0.06, p = 0.9). Radiation oncologists reported that they had spoken to over two thirds of patients about this, whilst less than one third of patients stated that this discussion had occurred with their radiation oncologist. Over half of the patients who had not discussed life expectancy wanted to. Patients had variable preferences for whether they (80%), their radiation oncologist (78%) or their partner/family (52%) should decide whether they discuss their life expectancy. Although patient self-reported information about diagnosis and time since diagnosis appears to be reasonably accurate (compared with clinician-reported information), limitations of self-reported data about prognostic discussions were highlighted by poor agreement between patient- and clinician-reported information about whether prognostic discussions have occurred. Additional support is needed to improve prognosis communication and understanding in radiation oncology settings

Colorectal cancer risk assessment and screening recommendation: a community survey of healthcare providers' practice from a patient perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Family history is a common risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet it is often underused to guide risk assessment and the provision of risk-appropriate CRC screening recommendation. The aim of this study was to identify from a patient perspective health care providers' current practice relating to: (i) assessment of family history of CRC; (ii) notification of "increased risk" to patients at "moderately/potentially high" familial risk; and (iii) recommendation that patients undertake CRC screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>1592 persons aged 56-88 years randomly selected from the Hunter Community Study (HCS), New South Wales, Australia were mailed a questionnaire. 1117 participants (70%) returned a questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty eight percent of respondents reported ever being asked about their family history of CRC. Ever discussing family history of CRC with a health care provider was significantly more likely to occur for persons with a higher level of education, who had ever received screening advice and with a lower physical component summary score. Fifty one percent of persons at "moderately/potentially high risk" were notified of their "increased risk" of developing CRC. Thirty one percent of persons across each level of risk had ever received CRC screening advice from a health care provider. Screening advice provision was significantly more likely to occur for persons who had ever discussed their family history of CRC with a health care provider and who were at "moderately/potentially high risk".</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Effective interventions that integrate both the assessment and notification of familial risk of CRC to the wider population are needed. Systematic and cost-effective mechanisms that facilitate family history collection, risk assessment and provision of screening advice within the primary health care setting are required.</p

Protocol of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS)

Rationale: To address unmet needs, electronic messages to support person-centred goal attainment and secondary prevention may avoid hospital presentations/readmissions after stroke, but evidence is limited. Hypothesis: Compared to control participants, there will be a 10% lower proportion of intervention participants who represent to hospital (emergency/admission) within 90 days of randomisation. Methods and design: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention group receives 12 weeks of personalised, goal-centred and administrative electronic messages, while the control group only receives administrative messages. The trial includes a process evaluation, assessment of treatment fidelity and an economic evaluation. Participants: Confirmed stroke (modified Rankin Score: 0-4), aged �18 years with internet/mobile phone access, discharged directly home from hospital. Randomisation: 1:1 computer-generated, stratified by age and baseline disability. Outcomes Assessments: Collected at 90 days and 12 months following randomisation. Outcomes: Primary: Hospital emergency presentations/admissions within 90 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include goal attainment, self-efficacy, mood, unmet needs, disability, quality-of-life, recurrent stroke/cardiovascular events/deaths at 90 days and 12 months, and death and cost-effectiveness at 12 months. Sample size: To test our primary hypothesis, we estimated a sample size of 890 participants (445 per group) with 80% power and two-tailed significance threshold of α=0.05. Given uncertainty for the effect size of this novel intervention, the sample size will be adaptively re-estimated when outcomes for n=668 are obtained, with maximum sample capped at 1100. Discussion: We will provide new evidence on the potential effectiveness, implementation and cost-effectiveness of a tailored eHealth intervention for survivors of stroke

Identifying psychological morbidity among people with cancer using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: time to revisit first principles?

Background: The aim of this review was to describe the findings and methodological quality of studies, which sought to validate the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) against the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM in cancer populations. We also sought to compare the cut points recommended by these validation studies with the way in which the HADS is currently used to determine prevalence of psychological morbidity in cancer populations. Methods: An electronic database search was conducted of Medline from 1983 to October 2010 for validation studies of the HADS in cancer populations. Reference lists of HADS reviews were hand searched. To examine which cut points are commonly used in cancer specific literature to identify the prevalence of psychological disorders, studies published in 2009 were identified via an electronic database search of Medline. Results: Ten studies, which validated the HADS against the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM in cancer patient populations, were found and examined in detail. None met all methodological criteria associated with the selection of a screening instrument. Recommendations for optimal HADS thresholds varied substantially across these studies. The most commonly used threshold for determining caseness in the 2009 literature on prevalence of psychological distress among patients with cancer was a subscale score of ≥ 8. This threshold was poorly supported by the results of the 10 cancer HADS validation studies examined. Conclusions: Caution is warranted in interpreting the results of prevalence studies using the HADS. There is a need to develop evidence about the optimal thresholds for defining caseness using the HAD

Recruitment in general practice

General practice is an ideal platform for public health researchers as it provides access to a large proportion of the population and enables researchers to target a range of health conditions. While research in this setting is both valuable and essential, difficulties with practice and practitioner recruitment may hinder the development of evidence in this setting

Radiation oncology outpatient perceptions of patient-centred care: a cross-sectional survey

Objectives: We aimed to describe the proportion and characteristics of cancer patients who perceived that better care would have greatly improved their well-being in (1) specific and (2) multiple domains of patient-centred care. Design: Cross-sectional touchscreen computer survey. Setting: Four Australian radiation therapy departments located within major urban public hospitals. Participants: Radiation therapy outpatients were invited to participate in a touchscreen computer survey. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, diagnosed with cancer and had sufficient English to complete the survey. Primary outcome measure: Participants were asked whether their well-being could have been greatly improved if better care had been provided across eight domains of patient-centred care. Characteristics of those respondents who identified (1) specific and (2) multiple domains where it was perceived that better care would have greatly improved their well-being were examined. Results: Of 508 eligible radiation therapy patients, 344 (68%) completed the survey. Patients most frequently perceived that better care in the following domains could have improved their well-being: information and communication about their cancer (22%; 95% CI 18% to 27%); emotional and spiritual support (22%; 95% CI 18% to 27%); management of physical symptoms (21%; 95% CI 17% to 26%) and involvement of friends and family (21%; 95% CI 17% to 26%). Just under one-third of respondents (31%; 95% CI 26% to 36%) indicated that their well-being could have been improved by better care across two or more domains of care. Patients in younger age groups and migrants to Australia had higher odds of endorsing multiple domains where better care would have improved their well-being. Conclusions: Further investigation of patients’ perceptions of how their perceived quality of care might be improved is warranted, particularly among patients in younger age groups and migrants to Australia