Patient Expectations About Palliative Treatment for Symptomatic Spinal Metastases: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with spinal metastases often receive palliative surgery or radiation therapy to maintain or improve health-related quality of life. Patients with unrealistic expectations regarding treatment outcomes have been shown to be less satisfied with their post-treatment health status. This study evaluated expectations of patients with spinal metastases scheduled for surgery and/or radiation therapy. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with symptomatic spinal metastases before and 6 weeks after surgery and/or radiation therapy. Expectations regarding treatment outcomes were discussed before treatment, and level of fulfillment of these pretreatment expectations was discussed after treatment. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed according to the thematic analysis method to identify themes. RESULTS: Before treatment, patients thought they were not, or minimally, informed about (expected) treatment outcomes, but they felt well informed about treatment procedures and possible complications. Although patients expected pain relief and improvement in daily functioning, they found it difficult to describe any recovery timeline or the impact of these expected improvements on their daily life. Patients generally understood that treatment was not curative, but lacked insight into the impact of treatment on life expectancy given that this was hardly discussed by their surgeon and/or radiation oncologist. Pretreatment expectations regarding pain and daily functioning were only partially met in most patients post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients thought they were not, or only minimally, informed about expected outcomes after surgery and/or radiation therapy for symptomatic spinal metastases. Improvements in patient-physician communication and counseling could help guide patients toward realistic pretreatment expectations.

Expectations of treatment outcomes in patients with spinal metastases; what do we tell our patients? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Realistic pre-treatment expectations are important and have been associated with post-treatment health related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient expectations are greatly influenced by physicians, as they are the primary resource for information. This study aimed to explore the communication practices of physicians regarding treatment outcomes for patients with spinal metastases, and physician experiences with patients' pre-treatment expectations. METHODS: An international qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with physicians routinely involved in treating metastatic spine disease (spine surgeons, radiation and medical oncologists, and rehabilitation specialists) was conducted. Physicians were interviewed about the content and extent of information they provide to patients with spinal metastases regarding treatment options, risks and treatment outcomes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic coding network. RESULTS: After 22 interviews data saturation occurred. The majority of the physicians indicated that they currently do not establish patients' pre-treatment expectations, despite acknowledging the importance of these expectations. Spine surgeons often believe that patient expectations are disproportionate. Physicians expressed they manage expectations by detailing the most common risks and providing a broad but nonspecific overview of treatment outcomes. While the palliative intent seems clear to the physicians, their perception is that the implications of a palliative treatment remains elusive to most patients. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the current gap in patient-physician communication regarding expectations of treatment outcomes of patients with spinal metastases. These results warrant further research to improve communication practices and determine the effect of patient expectations on patient reported outcomes in this population.

Tablet, web-based, or paper questionnaires for measuring anxiety in patients suspected of breast cancer: patients' preferences and quality of collected data.

BACKGROUND: Electronic applications are increasingly being used in hospitals for numerous purposes. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess differences in the characteristics of patients who choose paper versus electronic questionnaires and to evaluate the data quality of both approaches. METHODS: Between October 2012 and June 2013, 136 patients participated in a study on diagnosis-induced stress and anxiety. Patients were asked to fill out questionnaires at six different moments during the diagnostic phase. They were given the opportunity to fill out the questionnaires on paper or electronically (a combination of tablet and Web-based questionnaires). Demographic characteristics and completeness of returned data were compared between groups. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of patients (88/136, 64.7%) chose to fill out the questionnaires on paper, and just over a third (48/136, 35.3%) preferred the electronic option. Patients choosing electronic questionnaires were significantly younger (mean 47.3 years vs mean 53.5 in the paper group, P=.01) and higher educated (P=.004). There was significantly more missing information (ie, at least one question not answered) in the paper group during the diagnostic day compared to the electronic group (using a tablet) (28/88 vs 1/48, P<.001). However, in the week after the diagnostic day, missing information was significantly higher in the electronic group (Web-based questionnaires) compared to the paper group (41/48 vs 38/88, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Younger patients and patients with a higher level of education have a preference towards filling out questionnaires electronically. In the hospital, a tablet is an excellent medium for patients to fill out questionnaires with very little missing information. However, for filling out questionnaires at home, paper questionnaires resulted in a better response than Web-based questionnaires.

Gender-related needs and preferences in cancer care indicate the need for an individualized approach to cancer patients.

AIM: Improving quality of care for cancer patients requires insight into their specific wishes, needs, and preferences concerning cancer care. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of gender on cancer patients' needs and preferences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from 386 questionnaires assessing cancer patients' preferences for health care. Multivariate regression analyses were performed with data obtained from medical oncology patients treated in seven Dutch hospitals, using the scales of the questionnaire as dependent variables. RESULTS: Patients rated safety, expertise, performance, and attitude of physicians and nurses highest on their list of preferences. There were significant differences between male and female patients concerning preferences in health care in 15 of the 21 scales and in two of the eight single items. Without exception, women found the care aspects mentioned in these scales and items more important than men. Multivariate regression analysis showed that, of all the patient- and disease-related factors, gender was the most important independent predictor of patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Gender impacts cancer patients' needs and preferences and should be taken into account for optimal cancer care. Cancer care might be tailored toward gender, for example, with regard to the means and extent of communication, manner and extent of support, counseling and rehabilitation, consultation length, and physician assignment. The results of this study may guide health care professionals and organizations to develop a gender-specific health care approach to further improve cancer patient-centered care.

Are health care professionals able to judge cancer patients' health care preferences correctly? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Health care for cancer patients is primarily shaped by health care professionals. This raises the question to what extent health care professionals are aware of patients' preferences, needs and values.The aim of this study was to explore to what extent there is concordance between patients' preferences in cancer care and patients' preferences as estimated by health care professionals. We also examined whether there were gender differences between health care professionals with regard to the degree in which they can estimate patients' preferences correctly. METHODS: To obtain unbiased insight into the specific preferences of cancer patients, we developed the 'Cancer patients' health care preferences' questionnaire'. With this questionnaire we assessed a large sample of cancer patients (n = 386). Next, we asked health care professionals (medical oncologists, nurses and policymakers, n = 60) to fill out this questionnaire and to indicate preferences they thought cancer patients would have. Mean scores between groups were compared using Mann-Whitney tests. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated for statistically significant differences. RESULTS: We found significant differences (ESs 0.31 to 0.90) between patients and professionals for eight out of twenty-one scales and two out of eight single items. Patients valued care aspects related to expertise and attitude of health care providers and accessibility of services as more important than the professionals thought they would do. Health care professionals overestimated the value that patients set on particularly organisational and environmental aspects.We found significant gender-related differences between the professionals (ESs 0.69 to 1.39 ) for eight out of twenty-one scales and two out of eight single items. When there were significant differences between male and female healthcare professionals in their estimation of patients health care preferences, female health care professionals invariably had higher scores. Generally, female health care professionals did not estimate patients' preferences and needs better than their male colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals are reasonably well able to make a correct estimation of patients preferences, but they should be aware of their own bias and use additional resources to gain a better understanding of patients' specific preferences for each patient is different and ultimately the care needs and preferences will also be unique to the person.

Preferences to receive unsolicited findings of germline genome sequencing in a large population of patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: In precision medicine, somatic and germline DNA sequencing are essential to make genome-guided treatment decisions in patients with cancer. However, it can also uncover unsolicited findings (UFs) in germline DNA that could have a substantial impact on the lives of patients and their relatives. It is therefore critical to understand the preferences of patients with cancer concerning UFs derived from whole-exome (WES) or whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS: In a quantitative multicentre study, adult patients with cancer (any stage and origin of disease) were surveyed through a digital questionnaire based on previous semi-structured interviews. Background knowledge was provided by showing two videos, introducing basic concepts of genetics and general information about different categories of UFs (actionable, non-actionable, reproductive significance, unknown significance). RESULTS: In total 1072 patients were included of whom 701 participants completed the whole questionnaire. Overall, 686 (85.1%) participants wanted to be informed about UFs in general. After introduction of four UFs categories, 113 participants (14.8%) changed their answer: 718 (94.2%) participants opted for actionable variants, 537 (72.4%) for non-actionable variants, 635 (87.0%) participants for UFs of reproductive significance and 521 (71.8%) for UFs of unknown significance. Men were more interested in receiving certain UFs than women: non-actionable: OR 3.32; 95% CI 2.05 to 5.37, reproductive significance: OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.67 and unknown significance: OR 2.00; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.21. In total, 244 (33%) participants conceded family members to have access to their UFs while still alive. 603 (82%) participants agreed to information being shared with relatives, after they would pass away. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the vast majority of patients with cancer desires to receive all UFs of genome testing, although a substantial minority does not wish to receive non-actionable findings. Incorporation of categories in informed consent procedures supports patients in making informed decisions on UFs.

Cancer patients' intentions towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using next-generation sequencing.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can be used to generate information about a patient's tumour and personal genome. This powerful diagnostic tool provides solicited and unsolicited hereditary genetic (risk) information that could have consequences for cancer patients and their quality of life. A well-defined approach for returning appropriate genetic risk information is needed in personalized cancer care. A qualitative design with semi-structured interviews was used. We conducted interviews with 24 Dutch patients with different types of cancer, both NGS-experienced and NGS-inexperienced, to learn their intentions, needs and preferences towards receiving unsolicited genetic information obtained using NGS. Almost all participants had a positive attitude towards receiving unsolicited findings. After receiving comprehensive background information on NGS, including a binning model of four categories of unsolicited findings, most participants preferred to receive only subsets of genetic information. Their main concern was their own and others' (including family members) ability to cope with (the increased risk of having) a genetic disorder. Providing background information gave cancer patients the opportunity to select subsets of findings and increased their ability to make an informed choice. Special attention is needed for social and emotional factors to support the patients themselves and when communicating test results with their family members.

Same-day diagnosis based on histology for women suspected of breast cancer: high diagnostic accuracy and favorable impact on the patient.

BACKGROUND: Same-day diagnosis based on histology is increasingly being offered to patients suspected of breast cancer. We evaluated to which extent same-day diagnosis affected diagnostic accuracy and patients' anxiety levels during the diagnostic phase. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All 759 women referred for same-day evaluation of suspicious breast lesions between November 2011-March 2013 were included. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by linking all patients to the national pathology database to identify diagnostic discrepancies, in which case slides were reviewed. Patients' anxiety was measured in 127 patients by the State Trait and Anxiety Inventory on six moments during the diagnostic workup and changes over time (< = 1 week) were analyzed by mixed effect models. RESULTS: Core-needle biopsy was indicated in 374/759 patients (49.3%) and in 205/759 (27%) patients, invasive or in situ cancer was found. Final diagnosis on the same day was provided for 606/759 (79.8%) patients. Overall, 3/759 (0.4%) discordant findings were identified. Anxiety levels decreased significantly over time from 45.2 to 30.0 (P = <0.001). Anxiety levels decreased from 44.4 to 25.9 (P = <0.001) for patients with benign disease, and remained unchanged for patients diagnosed with malignancies (48.6 to 46.7, P = 0.933). Time trends in anxiety were not affected by other patient or disease characteristics like age, education level or (family) history of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Same-day histological diagnosis is feasible in the vast majority of patients, without impairing diagnostic accuracy. Patients' anxiety rapidly decreased in patients with a benign diagnosis and remained constant in patients with malignancy.

Effect of intensive care environment on family and patient satisfaction: a before-after study.

PURPOSE: To determine to what extent intensive care unit environment affects family and patient satisfaction. METHODS: A before-after study was performed in one university hospital in The Netherlands, 2 months before and 2 months after the migration of an intensive care unit (ICU) with multiple beds on a ward to a newly built ICU with all single rooms. Family and patient satisfaction were determined by two surveys: family satisfaction with care in the ICU and patient satisfaction with care in the ICU, respectively. RESULTS: From 387 of 617 (63 %) discharged patients at least one survey (patient and/or family) was returned. Both family and patients were more satisfied with their overall ICU experience in the new ICU as compared with the old ICU. Mean scores for family satisfaction increased from 69.5 [standard deviation (SD) 16.6] to 74.1 (SD 15.2) for old and new ICU, respectively (p = 0.02). For patients, satisfaction rates increased from 63.6 (SD 18.9) to 69.6 (SD 18.3) for old and new ICU, respectively (p = 0.02). The largest differences on single items of the surveys were noted on environmental aspects. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantify the effect of ICU environment on family and patient satisfaction. Family and patient satisfaction with ICU experience increased by 6 % in the new ICU environment with noise-reduced, single rooms with daylight, adapted colouring and improved family facilities.