Socio-demographic and health-related determinants of patients' overall rating and experiences of cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how patient-reported experiences of care and overall rating of care vary among patients with different characteristics is useful to help interpret results from patient experience surveys and design targeted improvement interventions. The primary objective of this paper was to identify the socio-demographic and health-related characteristics independently associated with overall rating of cancer care. The secondary objective was to explore if and how these characteristics were associated with specific experiences of cancer care. METHODS: This cross-sectional multicenter study analyzed self-reported data collected from 2696 patients diagnosed with breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, skin, or hematological cancer from four large hospitals in French-speaking Switzerland. Multivariate logistic regressions with purposeful stepwise selection of independent variables were used to identify the socio-demographic and health-related characteristics independently associated with overall rating of cancer care in the primary analyses. In the secondary analyses, we ran the multivariate model from the primary analyses with specific experiences of care as outcomes to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the selected characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents' mean rating of overall cancer care was 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10, with 17% categorized as reporting a low rating (0-7 rating). Being a woman (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.83), not being Swiss (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12-1.94), reporting lower health literacy (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.54-2.47), preferring making medical decisions alone (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.38-2.67), having forgone care due to cost (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.29-2.29), having used complementary medicine (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.22-1.97), and reporting poorer health (OR 3.12, 95% CI 2.17-4.50) were all independently associated with a low rating of overall cancer care. Poorer health, lower health literacy, and having forgone care were the three characteristics most often associated with problematic experiences of care. CONCLUSIONS: Our results identified several patient characteristics consistently associated with lower overall rating of care and specific experiences of cancer care. Among these determinants, health literacy and financial hardship emerged as key recurring factors shaping poor patient experiences that should be prioritized for attention by cancer care services.

The Lausanne Hospitality Model: a model integrating hospitality into supportive care.

PURPOSE: Cancer care is undergoing a conceptual shift with the introduction of the principles of patient-centered care to support patients' individual needs. These needs include those related to hospitality during cancer treatments. This paper aims to provide an extension of the supportive care framework by bringing in the hospitality approach inspired by the hotel industry. METHOD: The "Lausanne Hospitality Model," integrating hospitality into supportive care, was developed through an iterative process, combining expertise in supportive care and health services research, communication, and the hotel industry. RESULTS: This conceptual paper integrates hospitality and service sciences into the supportive care framework. The "Lausanne Hospitality Model" offers new insights into the notions of cancer journey, patient experience, services, and practices that may be involved when facilitating hospitality. While most concepts used in the model are based on prior research, they have not been combined previously. The model highlights the place of hospitality in the patient's experience within cancer services and, by extension, its role in professional practice. CONCLUSION: Practices involved in the delivery of cancer care need to reinforce the importance attributed to hospitality services, as they impact patients' experiences. By integrating the hospitality perspective into healthcare delivery and supportive care, this paper addresses previously theoretically overlooked aspects that impact patients' experiences during cancer care.

Patients' experiences with cancer care in Switzerland: Results of a multicentre cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to describe patients' experiences of cancer care in Switzerland and explore the variation of these experiences by type of cancer. METHODS: The Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) study was a cross-sectional, multicentre survey conducted in 2018. Adult patients (n = 7145) with breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, skin or haematological cancer from four large hospitals in French-speaking Switzerland were invited to complete a survey. Logistic regressions were used to assess whether experiences varied according to cancer type, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Of the 3121 persons who returned the survey (44% response rate), 2755 reporting an eligible cancer were included in the analyses. Participants' average score for overall care was 8.5 out of a maximum score of 10. Higher rates of positive experiences were found for nurse consultations (94%), diagnostic tests (85%) and inpatient care (82%). Lower positive responses were reported for support for people with cancer (70%), treatment decisions (66%), diagnosis (65%) and home care (55%). We observed non-systematic differences in experiences of care by cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This large study identified that cancer patient experiences can be improved in relation to communication, information and supportive care aspects. Improvement efforts should target these areas of care to enhance responsiveness of cancer care.

Quality of Cancer Care in Switzerland: Going Beyond Traditional Quality Indicators by Collecting Patient-Reported Experiences of Cancer Care.

Background: High-quality cancer care should be effective, safe, accessible, efficient, equitable, and responsive to patients' needs. In Switzerland, information on the safety and effectiveness of cancer care is available, but not on responsiveness. Systematic and comprehensive reports from patients on cancer care are missing and needed to complete the assessment of the quality of cancer care. Evidence: Patient-reported experiences of cancer care are key to evaluate responsiveness of care and drive quality improvement initiatives in oncology practice. Studies have found that responsive care leads to more positive experiences of care, which can lead to more effective treatments and health benefits. Policy Options and Recommendations: Our first recommendation is to develop a position statement on the importance and value of patient-reported experiences of cancer care. Our second recommendation is to systematically collect patients' experiences of cancer care at the national level, through a dedicated national cancer-specific measurement program or through the integration of patient-reported experiences measures in cancer registries. Conclusion: The systematic collection of patient-reported experiences of cancer care provides essential information on what matters to patients in addition to traditional clinical information, including patients as partners of the overall assessment of healthcare performance.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0). RESULTS: 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types. CONCLUSIONS: This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings. METHODS: An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual). RESULTS: Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution. CONCLUSIONS: The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

Computer-assisted textual analysis of free-text comments in the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience surveys are increasingly conducted in cancer care as they provide important results to consider in future development of cancer care and health policymaking. These surveys usually include closed-ended questions (patient-reported experience measures (PREMs)) and space for free-text comments, but published results are mostly based on PREMs. We aimed to identify the underlying themes of patients' experiences as shared in their own words in the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) survey and compare these themes with those assessed with PREMs to investigate how the textual analysis of free-text comments contributes to the understanding of patients' experiences of care. METHODS: SCAPE is a multicenter cross-sectional survey that was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019 in French-speaking parts of Switzerland. Patients were invited to rate their care in 65 closed-ended questions (PREMs) and to add free-text comments regarding their cancer-related experiences at the end of the survey. We conducted computer-assisted textual analysis using the IRaMuTeQ software on the comments provided by 31% (n = 844) of SCAPE survey respondents (n = 2755). RESULTS: We identified five main thematic classes, two of which consisting of a detailed description of 'cancer care pathways'. The remaining three classes were related to 'medical care', 'gratitude and praise', and the way patients lived with cancer ('cancer and me'). Further analysis of this last class showed that patients' comments related to the following themes: 'initial shock', 'loneliness', 'understanding and acceptance', 'cancer repercussions', and 'information and communication'. While closed-ended questions related mainly to factual aspects of experiences of care, free-text comments related primarily to the personal and emotional experiences and consequences of having cancer and receiving care. CONCLUSIONS: A computer-assisted textual analysis of free-text in our patient survey allowed a time-efficient classification of free-text data that provided insights on the personal experience of living with cancer and additional information on patient experiences that had not been collected with the closed-ended questions, underlining the importance of offering space for comments. Such results can be useful to inform questionnaire development, provide feedback to professional teams, and guide patient-centered initiatives to improve the quality and safety of cancer care.

Health status and quality of life in patients with diabetes in Switzerland.

AIMS: We aimed to assess the health status and quality of life (QoL) of patients with diabetes and explore the associated factors in a French-speaking region of Switzerland. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed self-reported data from 585 patients with diabetes. We ran univariate and multivariate regressions analyses on health status (Physical and Mental Component Summary scores (PCS, MCS) of the SF-12) and diabetes-specific QoL (ADDQoL score). RESULTS: Mean PCS was 43.1±10.4 and mean MCS was 46.7±11.1. The overall ADDQoL score was -1.6±1.6; the life domains of the ADDQoL with the lowest scores were freedom to eat, sex life and freedom to drink. Being older was independently and significantly associated with higher mental health and QoL, while lower income was associated with lower physical health, mental health, and QoL. Having diabetes for over 10 years was associated with lower QoL, while insulin treatment and complications were correlated with lower physical health and QoL. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key information on the health status and QoL of patients with diabetes in Switzerland and their associated factors, which can help healthcare providers to identify patients at higher risk of lower health and QoL.

The use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument in diabetes care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was created to assess whether provided care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, according to patients. We aimed to identify all studies using the PACIC in diabetic patients to explore (i) how overall PACIC scores varied across studies and (ii) whether scores varied according to healthcare delivery, patient and instrument characteristics. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted data on healthcare delivery, patient, and instrument characteristics, and overall PACIC score and standard deviation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions. RESULTS: We identified 34 studies including 25 942 patients from 13 countries, mostly in North America and Europe, using different versions of the PACIC in 11 languages. The overall PACIC score fluctuated between 1.7 and 4.2, with a pooled score of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-3.2, 95% predictive interval 1.9-4.2), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The PACIC variance was not explained by healthcare delivery or patient characteristics, but by the number of points on the response scale (5 vs. 11) and the continent (Asia vs. others). CONCLUSION: The PACIC is a widely used instrument, but the direct comparison of PACIC scores between studies should be performed with caution as studies may employ different versions and the influence of cultural norms and language on the PACIC score remains unknown.

Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions.

Adding non-randomised studies to a Cochrane review brings complementary information for healthcare stakeholders: an augmented systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To reduce the burden of asthma, chronic disease management (CDM) programmes have been widely implemented and evaluated. Reviews including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that CDM programmes for asthma are effective. Other study designs are however often used for pragmatic reasons, but excluded from these reviews because of their design. We aimed to examine what complementary information could be retrieved from the addition of non-randomised studies to the studies included in a published Cochrane review on asthma CDM programmes, for healthcare stakeholders involved in the development, implementation, conduct or long-term sustainability of such programmes. METHODS: Extending a previously published Cochrane review, we performed a systematic review (augmented review) including any type of study designs instead of only those initially accepted by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review group. After double data selection and extraction, we compared study and intervention characteristics, assessed methodological quality and ran meta-analyses, by study design. RESULTS: We added 37 studies to the 20 studies included in the Cochrane review. The applicability of results was increased because of the larger variety of settings and asthma population considered. Also, adding non-randomised studies provided new evidence of improvements associated with CDM intervention (i.e. healthcare utilisation, days off work, use of action plan). Finally, evidence of CDM effectiveness in the added studies was consistent with the Cochrane review in terms of direction of effects. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of this augmented review is applicable to a broader set of patients and settings than those in the original Cochrane review. It also strengthens the message that CDM programmes have a beneficial effect on quality of life and disease severity, meaningful outcomes for the everyday life of patients with asthma. Despite the moderate to low methodological quality of all studies included, calling for caution in results interpretation and improvements in CDM evaluation methods and reporting, the inclusion of a broader set of study designs in systematic reviews of complex interventions, such as chronic disease management, is likely to be of high value and interest to patients, policymakers and other healthcare stakeholders.