Job stress and job satisfaction of physicians, radiographers, nurses and physicists working in radiotherapy: a multicenter analysis by the DEGRO Quality of Life Work Group

Background Ongoing changes in cancer care cause an increase in the complexity of cases which is characterized by modern treatment techniques and a higher demand for patient information about the underlying disease and therapeutic options. At the same time, the restructuring of health services and reduced funding have led to the downsizing of hospital care services. These trends strongly influence the workplace environment and are a potential source of stress and burnout among professionals working in radiotherapy. Methods and patients A postal survey was sent to members of the workgroup "Quality of Life" which is part of DEGRO (German Society for Radiooncology). Thus far, 11 departments have answered the survey. 406 (76.1%) out of 534 cancer care workers (23% physicians, 35% radiographers, 31% nurses, 11% physicists) from 8 university hospitals and 3 general hospitals completed the FBAS form (Stress Questionnaire of Physicians and Nurses; 42 items, 7 scales), and a self-designed questionnaire regarding work situation and one question on global job satisfaction. Furthermore, the participants could make voluntary suggestions about how to improve their situation. Results Nurses and physicians showed the highest level of job stress (total score 2.2 and 2.1). The greatest source of job stress (physicians, nurses and radiographers) stemmed from structural conditions (e.g. underpayment, ringing of the telephone) a "stress by compassion" (e.g. "long suffering of patients", "patients will be kept alive using all available resources against the conviction of staff"). In multivariate analyses professional group (p < 0.001), working night shifts (p = 0.001), age group (p = 0.012) and free time compensation (p = 0.024) gained significance for total FBAS score. Global job satisfaction was 4.1 on a 9-point scale (from 1 – very satisfied to 9 – not satisfied). Comparing the total stress scores of the hospitals and job groups we found significant differences in nurses (p = 0.005) and physicists (p = 0.042) and a borderline significance in physicians (p = 0.052). In multivariate analyses "professional group" (p = 0.006) and "vocational experience" (p = 0.036) were associated with job satisfaction (cancer care workers with < 2 years of vocational experience having a higher global job satisfaction). The total FBAS score correlated with job satisfaction (Spearman-Rho = 0.40; p < 0.001). Conclusion Current workplace environments have a negative impact on stress levels and the satisfaction of radiotherapy staff. Identification and removal of the above-mentioned critical points requires various changes which should lead to the reduction of stress

Workplace experience of radiographers: impact of structural and interpersonal interventions

PURPOSE: Within the framework of organisational development, an assessment of the workplace experience of radiographers (RGs) was conducted. The aims of this study were to develop structural and interpersonal interventions and to prove their effectiveness and feasibility. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of work-related factors, e.g. time management and communication, and two validated instruments (Workplace Analysis Questionnaire, Effort-Reward Imbalance Scale) was distributed to all RGs (n = 33) at baseline (T1). Interventions were implemented and a follow-up survey (T2) was performed 18 months after the initial assessment. RESULTS: At T1, areas with highest dissatisfaction were communication and time management for ambulant patients (bad/very bad, 57% each). The interventions addressed adaptation of work plans, coaching in developing interpersonal and team leadership skills, and regular team meetings. The follow-up survey (T2) showed significantly improved communication and cooperation within the team and improved qualification opportunities, whereas no significant changes could be identified in time management and in the workplace-related scales 'effort' expended at work and 'reward' received in return for the effort. CONCLUSION: Motivating workplace experience is important for high-level service quality and for attracting well-qualified radiographers to work at a place and to stay in the team for a longer period

Simultaneous in-field boost for patients with 1 to 4 brain metastasis/es treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy: a prospective study on quality-of-life

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To assess treatment toxicity and patients' survival/quality of life (QoL) after volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with simultaneous in-field boost (SIB) for cancer patients with 1 - 4 brain metastases (BM) treated with or without surgery.</p> <p>Methods and Materials</p> <p>Between March and December 2010, 29 BM patients (total volume BM, < 40 cm³) aged < 80 years, KPS ≥ 70, RPA < III were included in this prospective trial. Whole brain VMAT (30 Gy) and a SIB to the BM (40 Gy) was delivered in 10 fraction. Mean age was 62.1 ± 8.5 years. Fifteen (51.7%) underwent surgery. KPS and MMSE were prospectively assessed. A self-assessed questionnaire was used to assess the QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 with -BN20 module).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of April 2011 and after a mean FU of 5.4 ± 2.8 months, 14 (48.3%) patients died. The 6-month overall survival was 55.1%. Alopecia was only observed in 9 (31%) patients. In 3-month survivors, KPS was significantly (<it>p </it>= 0.01) decreased. MMSE score remained however stable (<it>p </it>= 0.33). Overall, QoL did decrease after VMAT. The mean QLQ-C30 global health status (<it>p </it>= 0.72) and emotional functional (<it>p </it>= 0.91) scores were decreased (low QoL). Physical (<it>p </it>= 0.05) and role functioning score (<it>p </it>= 0.01) were significantly worse and rapidly decreased during treatment. The majority of BN20 domains and single items worsened 3 months after VMAT except headaches (<it>p </it>= 0.046) and bladder control (<it>p </it>= 0.26) which improved.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The delivery of 40 Gy in 10 fractions to 1 - 4 BM using VMAT was achieved with no significant toxicity. QoL, performance status, but not MMSE, was however compromised 3 months after treatment in this selected cohort of BM patients.</p

Psychological Disorders, Cognitive Dysfunction and Quality of Life in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients with Radiation-Induced Brain Injury

PURPOSE:To evaluate factors affecting psychology, cognitive function and quality of life (QOL) of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients with radiation-induced brain injury (RI). METHODS AND MATERIALS:46 recurrence-free NPC patients with RI and 46 matched control patients without RI were recruited in our study. Subjective and objective symptoms of RI were evaluated with the LENT/SOMA systems. Psychological assessment was measured with Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was carried out in these patients for assessing their cognitive function. QOL was evaluated by means of WHOQOL BREF. RESULTS:Of the patients with RI, 39(84.8%) had depression and 40(87.0%) had anxiety. The patients with RI got higher scores both in SDS and SAS than those without RI (SDS, 63.48±8.11 vs. 58.67±7.52, p = 0.008; SAS, 67.36±10.41 vs. 60.34±9.76, p = 0.005). Score in MoCA of patients with RI was significantly lower than that of patients without RI (21.32±2.45 vs. 25.98±1.73, p<0.001). SAS was positive correlated with post-radiotherapy interval. Both SAS and SDS had a significantly positive correlation with the rank of SOMA, while MoCA had a significantly negative correlation with SOMA. Chemotherapy was a risk factor for cognitive dysfunction. In addition, patients with RI got significantly lower scores in physical health (16.50±11.05 vs. 35.02±10.43, p<0.001), psychological health (17.70±10.33 vs. 39.48±12.00, p<0.001) and social relationship (48.00±18.65 vs. 67.15±19.70, p<0.001) compared with those in patients without RI. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that anxiety and cognitive impairment were significant predictors of global QOL. CONCLUSIONS:NPC patients with RI exhibit negative emotions, impaired cognitive function and QOL. The severity of clinical symptoms of RI plays an important role in both emotions and cognitive function. Anxiety and cognitive impairment are associated with decreased QOL

The prognostic value of health-related quality-of-life data in predicting survival in glioblastoma cancer patients: results from an international randomised phase III EORTC Brain Tumour and Radiation Oncology Groups, and NCIC Clinical Trials Group study

This is one of the few studies that have explored the value of baseline symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in predicting survival in brain cancer patients. Baseline HRQOL scores (from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brain Cancer Module (BN 20)) were examined in 490 newly diagnosed glioblastoma cancer patients for the relationship with overall survival by using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Refined techniques as the bootstrap re-sampling procedure and the computation of C-indexes and R2-coefficients were used to try and validate the model. Classical analysis controlled for major clinical prognostic factors selected cognitive functioning (P=0.0001), global health status (P=0.0055) and social functioning (P<0.0001) as statistically significant prognostic factors of survival. However, several issues question the validity of these findings. C-indexes and R2-coefficients, which are measures of the predictive ability of the models, did not exhibit major improvements when adding selected or all HRQOL scores to clinical factors. While classical techniques lead to positive results, more refined analyses suggest that baseline HRQOL scores add relatively little to clinical factors to predict survival. These results may have implications for future use of HRQOL as a prognostic factor in cancer patients

Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: an overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health-related quality of life and survival are two important outcome measures in cancer research and practice. The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between quality of life data and survival time in cancer patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A review was undertaken of all the full publications in the English language biomedical journals between 1982 and 2008. The search was limited to cancer, and included the combination of keywords 'quality of life', 'patient reported-outcomes' 'prognostic', 'predictor', 'predictive' and 'survival' that appeared in the titles of the publications. In addition, each study was examined to ensure that it used multivariate analysis. Purely psychological studies were excluded. A manual search was also performed to include additional papers of potential interest.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 451 citations were identified in this rapid and systematic review of the literature. Of these, 104 citations on the relationship between quality of life and survival were found to be relevant and were further examined. The findings are summarized under different headings: heterogeneous samples of cancer patients, lung cancer, breast cancer, gastro-oesophageal cancers, colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, melanoma and other cancers. With few exceptions, the findings showed that quality of life data or some aspects of quality of life measures were significant independent predictors of survival duration. Global quality of life, functioning domains and symptom scores - such as appetite loss, fatigue and pain - were the most important indicators, individually or in combination, for predicting survival times in cancer patients after adjusting for one or more demographic and known clinical prognostic factors.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This review provides evidence for a positive relationship between quality of life data or some quality of life measures and the survival duration of cancer patients. Pre-treatment (baseline) quality of life data appeared to provide the most reliable information for helping clinicians to establish prognostic criteria for treating their cancer patients. It is recommended that future studies should use valid instruments, apply sound methodological approaches and adequate multivariate statistical analyses adjusted for socio-demographic characteristics and known clinical prognostic factors with a satisfactory validation strategy. This strategy is likely to yield more accurate and specific quality of life-related prognostic variables for specific cancers.</p