Fasting vs no fasting prior to catheterisation laboratory procedures: the SCOFF trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend 6 hours of solid food and 2 hours of clear liquid fasting for patients undergoing cardiac procedures with conscious sedation. There are no data to support this practice, and previous single centre studies support the safety of removing fasting requirements. The objective of this study was to determine the non-inferiority of a no fasting strategy to fasting prior to cardiac catheterisation procedures which require conscious sedation. METHODS: This is a multicentre, investigator-initiated, non-inferiority randomised trial conduced in Australia with a prospective open label blinded endpoint design. Patients referred for coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention or cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) related procedures were enrolled. Patients were randomised 1:1 to fasting as normal (6 hours solid food and 2 hours clear liquid) or no fasting requirements (encouraged to have regular meals but not mandated to do so). Recruitment occurred from 2022 to 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of aspiration pneumonia, hypotension, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia assessed with a Bayesian approach. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction score, new ventilation requirement (non-invasive and invasive), new intensive care unit admission, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, 30-day pneumonia. RESULTS: 716 patients were randomised with 358 in each group. Those in the fasting arm had significantly longer solid food fasting (13.2 versus 3.0 hours, Bayes factor >100 indicating extreme evidence of difference) and clear liquid fasting times (7.0 versus 2.4 hours, Bayes factor >100). The primary composite outcome occurred in 19.1% of patients in the fasting arm and 12.0% of patients in the no fasting arm. The estimate of the mean posterior difference in proportions in the primary composite outcome was -5.2% (95% CI -9.6 to -0.9, ) favouring no fasting. This result confirms non-inferiority (posterior probability >99.5%) and superiority (posterior probability 99.1%) of no fasting for the primary composite outcome. The no fasting arm had improved patient satisfaction scores with a posterior mean difference of 4.02 points (95% CI 3.36 to 4.67, Bayes factor >100). Secondary outcome events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation and CIED related procedures, no fasting was non-inferior and superior to fasting for the primary composite outcome of aspiration pneumonia, hypotension, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. Patient satisfaction scores were significantly better with no fasting. This supports removing fasting requirements for patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation laboratory procedures that require conscious sedation.

Patient survey on cancer genomic medicine in Japan under the national health insurance system.

In Japan, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests have been reimbursed under the national health care system for solid cancer patients who have finished standard treatment. More than 50,000 patients have taken the test since June 2019. We performed a nation-wide questionnaire survey between March 2021 and July 2022. Questionnaires were sent to 80 designated Cancer Genomic Medicine Hospitals. Of the 933 responses received, 370 (39.7%) were web based and 563 (60.3%) were paper based. Most patients (784, 84%) first learned about CGP tests from healthcare professionals, and 775 (83.1%) gave informed consent to their treating physician. At the time of informed consent, they were most worried about test results not leading to novel treatment (536, 57.4%). On a scale of 0-10, 702 respondents (75.2%) felt that the explanations of the test result were easy to understand (7 or higher). Ninety-one patients (9.8%) started their recommended treatment. Many patients could not receive recommended treatment because no approved drugs or clinical trials were available (102/177, 57.6%). Ninety-eight patients (10.5%) did not wish their findings to be disclosed. Overall satisfaction with the CGP test process was high, with 602 respondents (64.5%) giving a score of 7-10. The major reason for choosing 0-6 was that the CGP test result did not lead to new treatment (217/277, 78.3%). In conclusion, satisfaction with the CGP test process was high. Patients and family members need better access to information. More patients need to be treated with genomically matched therapy.

The Pediatric Integrated Care Survey (PICS) in a multidisciplinary clinic for Down syndrome.

The Pediatric Integrated Care Survey (PICS) is validated for use to measure the caregiver reported experience of integration and efficiency of all the aspects of their child. We began using the PICS survey to track changes in the patient experience, including throughout changing models of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. From February 2019 to June 2023, 62 responses from caregivers of individuals seen in the Massachusetts General Hospital Down Syndrome Program completed the PICS. Responses were scored using the standardized PICS user manual, and descriptive statistics were completed. The raw scores and composite monthly scores of the PICs were graphed in statistical process control charts. The average PICS score was 12.0 (range 2-19) out of a maximum score of 19; no shifts or trends were seen. Items with lowest scores indicated greatest opportunities for improvement related to: advice from other care team members, impact of decisions on the whole family, things causing stress or making it hard because of child's health, and offering opportunities to connect with other families. Studying the PICS in a specialty clinic for Down syndrome for the first time has established a baseline for future quality improvement work and interventions to increase care integration.

Identifying the drivers of overall rating of cancer care: Insights from the second wave of the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences study.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience surveys gather information on various aspects of care via numerous survey items. Identifying the most critical areas of patient experience to prioritize for quality care improvement can be challenging. The objective of this study was to determine which care experience items are the drivers influencing patients' overall rating of cancer care. METHODS: Data from 2750 adult patients with cancer from the second wave of the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences study were analyzed. This cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight Swiss hospitals from September 2021 to February 2022. Stepwise logistic regression examined the relationship between overall care rating and 29 patient experience items covering different patient-centered care dimensions while adjusting for sociodemographic and health variables. RESULTS: Overall, patients rated their cancer care experience at 8.9 out of 10. Stepwise regression identified seven drivers contributing to overall care rating. The strongest drivers were "professionals worked well together" (odds ratio [OR], 4.81) and "tests were not repeated" (OR, 2.09) from the coordination and integration dimension, "offered support for symptoms during treatment" (OR, 2.11) from the physical comfort dimension, followed by "hospital staff ensured available home support" (OR, 1.99), "offered to see health professional for concerns" (OR, 1.91), "treatment options were explained" (OR, 1.75), and "involved in treatment decisions as desired" (OR, 1.68). CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated the care experiences of patients with cancer with a comprehensive tool that identified seven key factors independently associated with overall care rating. By concentrating on these areas, hospitals can not only improve the patient care experience but also efficiently allocate resources to quality improvement initiatives.

Affirming Long-Term Outcomes After Contemporary Urethroplasty: The Adverse Impact of Increasing Stricture Length, Lichen Sclerosus, Radiation, and Infectious Strictures.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of reported long-term outcomes after contemporary urethroplasty. Our objective is to determine the long-term success of modern urethroplasty and identify factors associated with stricture recurrence in this context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing urethroplasty from July 2003 to May 2013 with at least 100 months of follow-up were identified. Long-term outcomes including stricture recurrence and patient satisfaction were evaluated by review of regional/provincial electronic records and telephone interview. Urethroplasty failure was defined as a recurrent stricture (<16F) confirmed on cystoscopy. Cox regression was used to evaluate variables associated with long-term stricture recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 733 patients were identified with ≥ 100 months follow-up. Median patient age was 45 years, stricture length was 4.7 cm, and 85.8% failed prior endoscopic treatment. At a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 89 recurrences were observed. Cumulative incidence of stricture recurrence was 6%, 10%, and 12% after 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. From a patient-reported perspective, 89% of patients reported being satisfied with the outcome of surgery. On multivariable analyses, increasing stricture length (HR 1.1, 95% CI 1.05-1.15; P < .001) and stricture etiology (P < .001), in particular lichen sclerosus (HR 4.46, 95% CI 2.25-9.53), radiation (HR 4.25, 95% CI 1.65-10.9), and infectious strictures (HR 5.27, 95% CI 2.03-13.7), were independently associated with stricture recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study affirms the widely held belief that modern urethroplasty provides high long-term patency and patient-reported satisfaction. Patients with longer strictures as well as those with lichen sclerosus, radiation, and infectious etiologies have a higher hazard of stricture recurrence in the long term.

No pain relief by virtual reality during hysterosalpingography (HSG): results from a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16-01-2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021.

Patients' evaluation of aftercare following hospitalization for COVID-19: satisfaction and unmet needs.

BACKGROUND: Patient experiences with COVID-19 aftercare remain largely unknown. We evaluated COVID-19 aftercare from a patient perspective one year after hospitalization, assessing satisfaction and its associated factors, and unmet needs. METHODS: The Satisfaction with COVID-19 Aftercare Questionnaire (SCAQ) was developed as part of a multicenter prospective cohort study and administered one year after hospital discharge. The SCAQ assesses (1) patient satisfaction, comprising information provision, rehabilitation, follow-up by hospitals and general practitioners (GPs), the most important aftercare topics, and overall satisfaction, and (2) unmet needs. RESULTS: 487/561 (87%) COVID-19 patients completed the SCAQ, all had been discharged from the hospital between March 2020 and May 2021. Among responders, the median age of patients was 60 (IQR 54-67) years, 338 (69%) were male, and the median length of stay in the hospital was 13 (6-27) days. Patients were least satisfied with information on who could be contacted with questions when health problems arise (59% satisfied or very satisfied). Many patients (75%) received rehabilitation, most frequently community-based (70%). Across the different community-based therapies, ≥ 60% of patients were satisfied with shared-decision making and ≥ 70% with the received therapy; a majority (≥ 79%) indicated a preference for receiving the same therapy again if needed. Regarding follow-up by hospitals, 86% of patients received this follow-up, most frequently visiting a pulmonologist (96%), being generally satisfied with the received aftercare. Aftercare from GPs was received by 39% of patients, with 88% being satisfied with the GP's availability and 79% with referral to appropriate aftercare providers. Patients (> 50%) considered information-related items most important in aftercare. Overall, patients rated their satisfaction with aftercare 8/10 (7-9) points. Those who received medical rehabilitation (versus no rehabilitation, adjusted beta 0.61 [95%CI 0.11 to 1.11], p = 0.02) or aftercare by a hospital medical specialist (1.1 [0.46 to 1.64], p < 0.001) or GP (0.39 [0.053 to 0.72], p = 0.023) reported significantly higher satisfaction than those without such aftercare. Unmet needs were reported by 35% of patients, with lack of information (20%) and lack of additional aftercare and/or involvement of their GP (19%) being the most frequently reported. CONCLUSION: Despite the forced quick development of COVID-19 aftercare, patients were generally satisfied. Follow-up by healthcare professionals and information provision is important to meet patients' aftercare needs.

Differential Effect of Patient- and Provider-Level Factors on Patient Satisfaction Scores in Academic General Internal Medicine Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Determine whether patient-level or provider-level factors have greater influence on patient satisfaction scores in an academic general internal medicine clinic. METHODS: Two years of data (2017-2019) from the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CGCAHPS) surveys from ambulatory internal medicine clinic visits in an academic health center located in the Midwest United States were used. Patient satisfaction was measured using the overall provider satisfaction score (0-10), dichotomized with 9-10 defined as satisfactory and 0-8 as unsatisfactory. Provider-level independent variables included age, sex, race/ethnicity, provider type, service type, clinical effort, academic rank, and years since graduation. Patient-level factors included age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and Epic Risk Score. Generalized mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to investigate associations between top-box satisfaction score and patient- and provider-level factors, accounting for the nesting of patients within providers. RESULTS: Thirty-three providers and 4597 patients were included in the analysis. Male providers (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.00, 2.47), minority group 2 (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.24, 10.07) and minority group 3 (OR, 6.04; 95% CI, 1.45, 25.12), faculty (OR, 3.83; 95% CI, 1.56, 9.36), and primary care providers (OR, 5.60; 95% CI, 1.62, 19.34) had increased odds of having a top-box rating compared with females, minority group 1, advanced practice providers, and perioperative providers respectively. Age was the only patient independent correlate of top-box rating with a 3% increased odds of top-box rating for every year increase in age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI 1.02, 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this academic general internal medicine clinic, top-box satisfaction scores were more strongly associated with provider-level factors, including provider race/ethnicity, provider type, and service type, as opposed to patient-level factors. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and identify potential system-level interventions.

Patients' satisfaction with cancer pain treatment at adult oncologic centers in Northern Ethiopia; a multi-center cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Pain is one of the most common symptoms among cancer patients that needs optimal treatment; rather, it compromises the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and associated factors of satisfaction with cancer pain treatment among adult patients at cancer centers found in Northern Ethiopia in 2023. METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval, a multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted at four cancer care centers in northern Ethiopia. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire that included the Lubeck Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (LMSQ). The severity of pain was assessed by a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 with a pain score of 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, and 7-10 = severe pain Binary logistic regression analysis was employed, and the strength of association was described in an adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. RESULT: A total of 397 cancer patients participated in this study, with a response rate of 98.3%. We found that 70.3% of patients were satisfied with their cancer pain treatment. Being married (AOR = 5.6, CI = 2.6-12, P < 0.001) and being single (never married) (AOR = 3.5, CI = 1.3-9.7, P = 0.017) as compared to divorced, receiving adequate pain management (AOR = 2.4, CI = 1.1-5.3, P = 0.03) as compared to those who didn't receive it, and having lower pain severity (AOR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.8, P < 0.001) as compared to those who had higher level of pain severity were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancer patients were satisfied with cancer pain treatment. Being married, being single (never married), lower pain severity, and receiving adequate pain management were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. It would be better to enhance the use of multimodal analgesia in combination with strong opioids to ensure adequate pain management and lower pain severity scores.

Understanding the experience, treatment preferences and goals of people living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Listening to patient voices is critical, in terms of how people experience their condition as well as their treatment preferences. This research explored the patient journey, therapy attributes and goals among treatment experienced adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We sought to understand patient experiences, needs and expectations to identify areas for improvement of treatment and care delivery. METHODS: Two online surveys were developed for completion by CLL patients. In Stage 1, participants completed a best-worst scaling (BWS) task to evaluate eleven previously validated healthcare journey moments that matter (MTM). Responses were used to generate the patient experience index (PEI) score. In Stage 2, participants completed a survey that included both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess drivers of treatment preferences by evaluating the relative attribute importance (RAI) of seven features and a BWS exercise which explored long-term treatment goals. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients completed Stage 1 and thirty patients Stage 2. Treatment experience was balanced between oral and intravenous medication. The most important/least satisfied MTM were treatment effectiveness, access to support and other treatments as well as monitoring progress. The median PEI score was 66.2 (out of 100). DCE results demonstrated that patients most value treatments for CLL that are associated with prolonged progression free survival (PFS; RAI: 24.6%), followed by treatments that have a lower risk of severe side effects and lower out-of-pocket costs (RAI: 19.5%, 17.4%, respectively). The remainder of the weight in decision making (38.5%) was split between the remaining attributes, namely 'mild to moderate side effects' (13.4%), 'long-term risks' (12.2%), type of treatment (i.e., oral, IV or a combination of oral and IV; 8.7%) and treatment duration (i.e., ongoing versus fixed; 4.2%). Patients preferred oral to intravenous therapy. The most valued long-term treatment goal was to be physically healthy, followed by living a long life, spending time with family/friends, and avoiding hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Treatment experienced patients with CLL are focused on receiving effective, safe therapies and value long PFS. Consideration and discussion of other attributes, such as once daily dosing, oral only medication, out-of-pocket costs and access to support services may affect patient treatment choices and ultimately enhance their healthcare experience and outcomes.

Factors influencing diabetes treatment satisfaction in the INtegrating DEPrEssioN and Diabetes treatmENT randomized clinical trial: A multilevel model analysis.

AIMS: Patient satisfaction is associated with positive diabetes outcomes. However, there are no identified studies that evaluate both patient- and clinic-level predictors influencing diabetes care satisfaction longitudinally. METHODS: Data from the INtegrating DEPrEssioN and Diabetes treatmENT trial was used to perform the analysis. We used fixed and random effects models to assess whether and how changes in patient-level predictors (treatment assignment, depression symptom severity, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, LDL cholesterol, and haemoglobin A1C) from 0 to 24 months and clinic-level predictors (visit frequency, visit cost, number of specialists, wait time, time spent with healthcare provider, and receiving verbal reminders) measured at 24 months influence diabetes care satisfaction from 0 to 24 months. RESULTS: Model 1 (patient-level predictors) accounted for 7% of the change in diabetes satisfaction and there was a significant negative relationship between change in depressive symptoms and care satisfaction (ß = -0.23, SE = 0.12, p < 0.05). Within Model 1, 2% of the variance was explained by clinic-level predictors. Model 2 included both patient- and clinic-level predictors and accounted for 18% of the change in diabetes care satisfaction. Within Model 2, 9% of the variance was attributed to clinic-level predictors. There was also a cross-level interaction where the change in depression had less of an impact on the change in satisfaction for those who received a verbal reminder (ß = -0.11, SE = 0.21, p = 0.34) compared with those who did not receive a reminder (ß = -0.62, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Increased burden of depressive symptoms influences diabetes care satisfaction. Clinic-level predictors also significantly influence diabetes care satisfaction and can reduce dissatisfaction in primary care, specifically, reminder calls from clinic staff.

Effect of reduced follow-up care on patient satisfaction with care among patients with endometrial cancer: The ENSURE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the optimal follow-up schedule after endometrial cancer is lacking. The study aim was to compare satisfaction with care between women who received reduced follow-up care and women who received usual guideline-directed follow-up care for three years after surgery. METHODS: The ENSURE (ENdometrial cancer SURvivors' follow-up carE) trial was a non-inferiority randomized controlled multicenter trial in 42 hospitals in the Netherlands. The intervention arm received reduced follow-up care (4 visits/3 years), while the control group received usual follow-up care (8-11 visits/3 years). Primary outcome was overall satisfaction with care, PSQIII score, over three years follow-up, with a non-inferiority margin of 6. Mixed linear regression, intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses (presented below) were used. RESULTS: Among 316 women included, overall satisfaction with care was not lower in the reduced follow-up (mean 82; SD = 15) compared with the usual follow-up group (mean 80; SD = 15) group (B = 1.80(-2.09;5.68)). At 6, 12 and 36 months, more women (93/94/90%) in the reduced follow-up group were satisfied with their follow-up schedule than in the usual follow-up group (79/79/82%; p < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women with low-risk, early-stage endometrial cancer who received reduced follow-up care were no less satisfied with their care than women receiving usual follow-up care. Compared with usual follow-up, women in the reduced follow-up group had fewer clinical visits and, at the same time, more often reported being satisfied with their follow-up schedule. Findings suggest that reduced follow-up care may be the new standard, but should be tailored to meet additional needs where indicated.

Physician awareness of patients' preferred level of involvement in decision-making at the initial urogynecology visit: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown up to a 40% discordance between patients' preferred roles in decision-making before and their perceived roles after their visit. This can negatively affect patients' experiences; interventions to minimize this discordance may significantly improve patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether physicians' awareness of patients' preferred involvement in decision-making before their initial urogynecology visit affects patients' perceived level of involvement after their visit. STUDY DESIGN: This randomized controlled trial enrolled adult English-speaking women presenting for their initial visit at an academic urogynecology clinic from June 2022 to September 2022. Before the visit, participants completed the Control Preference Scale to determine the patient's preferred level of decision-making: active, collaborative, or passive. The participants were randomized to either the physician team being aware of their decision-making preference before the visit or usual care. The participants were blinded. After the visit, participants again completed a Control Preference Scale and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, CollaboRATE, patient satisfaction, and health literacy questionnaires. Fisher exact, logistic regression, and generalized estimating equations were used. Based on a 21% difference in preferred and perceived discordance, we calculated the sample size to be 50 patients in each arm to achieve 80% power. RESULTS: Women (n=100) with a mean age of 52.9 years (standard deviation=15.8) participated in the study. Most participants identified as White (73%) and non-Hispanic (70%). Before the visit, most women preferred an active role (61%) and few preferred a passive role (7%). There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts in the discordance between their pre- and post-Control Preference Scale responses (27% vs 37%; P=.39) or whether their symptoms were much better or very much better following the visit (18% vs 37%; P=.06). However, when asked whether they were completely satisfied with the visit, those assigned to the physician awareness cohort reported higher satisfaction than those in the treatment as usual cohort (100% vs 90%; P=.03). CONCLUSION: Although there was no significant decrease in discordance between the patient's desired and perceived level of decision-making following physician awareness, it had a significant effect on patient satisfaction. All patients whose physicians were aware of their preferences reported complete satisfaction with their visit. Although patient-centered care does not always entail meeting all of the patients' expectations, the mere understanding of their preferences in decision-making can lead to complete patient satisfaction.

Effect of detrusor underactivity on surgical outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of detrusor underactivity (DUA) on the postoperative outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with BPH who underwent HoLEP between January 2018 and December 2022 were enrolled in this prospective database study. Patients were divided into DUA (bladder contractility index [BCI] <100) and non-DUA (BCI ≥100) groups. Objective (maximum urinary flow rate [Qmax], post-void residual urine volume [PVR]) and subjective outcomes (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], Overactive Bladder Symptom Score [OABSS], satisfaction with treatment question [STQ], overall response assessment [ORA], and willingness to undergo surgery question [WUSQ]) were compared between the two groups before surgery, and at 3 and 6 months after HoLEP. RESULTS: A total of 689 patients, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 69.8 (7.1) years, were enrolled. The mean (SD) BCI in the non-DUA (325 [47.2%]) and DUA (364 [52.8%]) groups was 123.4 (21.4) and 78.6 (14.2), respectively. Both objective (Qmax and PVR) and subjective (IPSS, IPSS-quality of life, and OABSS) outcomes after surgery significantly improved in both groups. The Qmax was lower in the DUA than in the non-DUA group postoperatively. At 6 months postoperatively, the total IPSS was higher in the DUA than in the non-DUA group. There were no significant differences in surgical complications between the two groups. Responses to the STQ, ORA, and WUSQ at 6 months postoperatively demonstrated that the patients were satisfied with the surgery (90.5% in the DUA group; 95.2% in the non-DUA group), their symptoms improved with surgery (95.9% in the DUA group; 100.0% in the non-DUA group), and they were willing to undergo surgery again (95.9% in the DUA group; 97.9% in the non-DUA group). There were no significant differences in the responses to the STQ and WUSQ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our midterm results demonstrated that patients with BPH and DUA showed minimal differences in clinical outcomes after HoLEP compared to those without DUA. The overall satisfaction was high in the DUA group.

The Effects of Patient-Centered Communication on Patient Engagement, Health-Related Quality of Life, Service Quality Perception and Patient Satisfaction in Patients with Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study in Türkiye.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-centered communication is a type of communication that takes place between the provider and the patient. OBJECTIVES: It is aimed to reveal the effects of patient-centered communication on patient engagement, health-related quality of life, perception of service quality and patient satisfaction. METHOD: The study was conducted by applying multiple regression analysis to the data obtained from 312 patients with cancer treated in a training and research hospital affiliated to the Ministry of Health in Diyarbakir, Türkiye. RESULTS: More than half of the patients were female and had stage 4 cancer. Different types of cancer were detected (breast cancer, cancer of the digestive organs, lymphatic and hematopoietic cancer, cancer of the genital organs, cancer of the respiratory organs, etc.). It can be stated that the average values obtained by patients from patient-centered communication and its sub-dimensions are high. There are positive, moderate and low and significant relationships between the overall patient-centered communication and patient engagement, patient satisfaction, service quality perception and quality of life. It was statistically revealed that patient-centered communication positively affected patient engagement, health-related quality of life, service quality perception, and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Patient-centered communication positively affects various short and medium-term health outcomes and this study offers suggestions for improving patient-provider communication.

Patient satisfaction with coronary CT angiography versus invasive coronary angiography: results of a single-center randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Because there is evidence for a clinical benefit of using coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography instead of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), we ascertained if patient satisfaction could represent an important barrier to implementation of coronary CT in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 329 patients with suspected CAD and clinical indication for ICA were randomly assigned to undergo either CT or ICA for guiding treatment. Satisfaction for both groups was assessed by patient questionnaire completed twice, ≥24 h after CT or ICA, and at follow-up after a median of 3.7 years. Assessment included preparation, concern, comfort, helplessness, pain, willingness to undergo tests again, overall satisfaction, and preference. Pearson's chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used. RESULTS: Overall, 91% of patients undergoing CT (152/167) and 86% undergoing ICA completed assessment (140/162, p = 0.19). Patients reported being significantly better prepared for CT, less concerned about the test, and felt less helpless than during ICA (all: p < 0.001). Subjective pain (horizontal nonmarked visual analogue scale) was significantly lower for CT (6.9 ± 14.7) than for ICA (17.1 ± 22.7; p < 0.001). At follow-up, significantly more patients in the CT group reported very good satisfaction with communication of findings compared with the ICA group (p < 0.001) and 92% would recommend the institution to someone referred for the same examination. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our single-center randomized study show very good satisfaction with coronary CT compared to ICA. Thus, superior acceptance of CT should be considered in shared decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This evaluation of patient satisfaction in a randomized study shows that patients' preference is in line with the clinical benefit provided by CT and also suggests to prefer a CT-first strategy in suspected coronary artery disease. KEY POINTS: • Subjective pain was significantly lower for coronary CT angiography than for invasive coronary angiography and patients felt better prepared and less concerned about CT. • Patients were overall more satisfied with coronary CT angiography than invasive coronary angiography in a randomized controlled trial. • After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, more patients in the CT group indicated very good satisfaction with the communication of findings and with the examination itself.

The Impact of a Digital Contraceptive Decision Aid on User Outcomes: Results of an Experimental, Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 40% of unplanned pregnancies in the USA are the result of inconsistent or incorrect contraceptive use. Finding ways to increase women's comfort and satisfaction with contraceptive use is therefore critical to public health. One promising pathway for improving patient outcomes is through the use of digital decision aids that assist women and their physicians in choosing a contraceptive option that women are comfortable with. Testing the ability of these aids to improve patient outcomes is therefore a necessary first step toward incorporating this technology into traditional physician appointments. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a novel contraceptive decision aid at minimizing decisional conflict and increasing comfort with contraception among adult women. METHODS: In total, 310 adult women were assigned to use either the Tuune contraceptive decision aid or a control aid modeled after a leading online contraceptive prescriber's patient intake form. Participants then completed self-report measures of decisional conflict, contraceptive expectations, satisfaction, and contraceptive use intentions. Individual between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) models were used to examine these outcomes. RESULTS: Women using the Tuune decision aid (vs. those using the control aid) reported lower decisional conflict, more positive contraceptive expectations, greater satisfaction with the decision aid and recommendation, and more positive contraceptive use intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Use of Tuune improved each of the predicted patient outcomes relative to a control decision aid. Online decision aids, particularly when used alongside physician consultations, may be an effective tool for increasing comfort with contraceptive use. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION #: NCT05177783, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05177783.

Digital decision aids that help women and their physicians choose contraceptive options that women are most comfortable with present one promising way to improve contraceptive use outcomes, such as avoiding unplanned pregnancies. However, current decision aids have been found to struggle in helping improve women's satisfaction with and confidence in their contraceptive choices. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a new digital decision aid, named Tuune, at helping improve women's confidence and comfort with contraception. Three hundred and ten adult women were randomly assigned to use and then receive a contraceptive recommendation from either the Tuune decision aid or a control aid designed after leading traditional health intake forms. Women's confidence and satisfaction with the aids, as well as their contraceptive recommendation, were then compared between groups. We found good evidence to suggest that women using the Tuune contraceptive decision aid were more satisfied and positive about their contraceptive choices and reported greater intentions to use contraception with increased confidence compared to women who used the control decision aid. New online decision aids, like Tuune, may be an effective tool for increasing women's comfort and experiences using contraception.

Improving value delivery in living donor kidney transplant through process improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Living donor kidney evaluation has substantial time variations with significant intercenter variation. One-day donor evaluation has shown to be clinically efficient and improve transplant rates. However, patients' perception of 1-day evaluation is unknown. We hypothesized that 1 day LKD evaluation will improve patient satisfaction and improve living donation rates. METHODS: All interested LD candidates from April 2018 to May 2020 were enrolled in the study. Non-directed donors, donors greater than 60 years old, and recipients with more than three donors underwent multi-day evaluation (control group) while the rest underwent 1-day evaluation (intervention group). An anonymous survey was filled by both groups to assess their perceptions on different areas including time, communication, experience, information provided, and their preferences on living donor evaluation. RESULTS: Donor candidates in the 1-day evaluation group selected that the time from the questionnaire to clinic evaluation took "under 1 month" or "less than 3 months" (62.5% vs. 15.8%, p = .002), with "excellent" for both scheduling process (65% vs. 31.6%, p = .03) and communication (82.5% vs. 57.9%, p = .09) when compared to candidates in the multiple-days evaluation group. One-day candidates felt "very satisfied" with the overall experience (95% vs. 68.4%, p = .02) and felt "extremely well" with the information provided regarding the living donor process (87.5% vs. 47.4%, p = .003) when compared to multiple-day evaluation group. Regardless of the group, 53 (89.8%) patients preferred 1-day evaluation. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate 1-day living donor evaluation is efficient, patient preferred, and adds value through improved communication, and better overall patient satisfaction.

A crossover comparison of patient satisfaction with two teriparatide regimens: primary results of the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial 06 (JOINT-06).

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare treatment satisfaction with two dosing regimens (two teriparatide [TPTD] self-injection systems) in osteoporosis patients at high risk of fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label crossover randomized trial comparing self-injected once-daily (1/D)-TPTD with self-injected twice-weekly (2/W)-TPTD, three satisfaction variables were evaluated by questionnaire for 2 years. The primary endpoint was overall satisfaction and secondary endpoints were satisfaction with treatment effectiveness and with utility of the self-injection device. Changes in quality of life (QOL) assessed by EuroQol-5 Dimension, pain assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS), and anthropometric parameters were also analyzed. Safety was evaluated based on the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The 1/D-TPTD and 2/W-TPTD groups consisted of 180 (75.9 ± 7.3 years) and 179 (age: 75.5 ± 6.9 years) patients, respectively. After 26 weeks of treatment, no significant between-group difference in the persistence rate (79.4% vs 72.6% in the 1/D-TPTD and 2/W-TPTD groups, respectively), distributions of overall satisfaction scores, and satisfaction with treatment (p > 0.05) were observed. However, several items of satisfaction with the utility of the injection device were significantly higher in the 2/W-TPTD group (p < 0.05). Statistical improvements from baseline values were observed in QOL and pain VAS in both groups (p < 0.05). No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: The between-group similarity of overall treatment satisfaction and effectiveness scores and between-group difference in satisfaction with the utility of the self-injection device was useful information for real-world treatment of osteoporosis. Both medication regimens were well tolerated.

Men's Satisfaction with General Health Services is Associated with Future Use of HIV Testing in Malawi: A Community-Representative Survey.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, men are less likely to know their HIV status than women, leading to later treatment initiation. Little is known about how experiences with general health services affect men's use of HIV testing. We used data from a 2019 community-representative survey of men in Malawi to understand frequency and cause of men's negative health service experiences (defined as men reporting they "would not recommend" a facility) and their association with future HIV testing. We conducted univariable and multivariable logistic regressions to determine which aspects of health facility visits were associated with would-not-recommend experiences and to determine if would-not-recommend experiences 12-24 months prior to the survey were associated with HIV testing in the 12 months prior to the survey. Among 1,098 men eligible for HIV testing in the 12 months prior to the survey, median age was 34 years; 9% of men reported at least one would-not-recommend experience, which did not differ by sociodemographics, gender norm beliefs, or HIV stigma beliefs. The factors most strongly associated with would-not-recommend experiences were cost (aOR 5.8, 95%CI 2.9-11.4), cleanliness (aOR 4.2, 95%CI 1.8-9.9), medicine availability (aOR 3.3, 95%CI 1.7-6.4), and wait times (aOR 2.7, 95%CI 1.5-5.0). Reporting a would-not-recommend experience 12-24 months ago was associated with a 59% decrease in likelihood of testing for HIV in the last 12 months (aOR 0.41; 95% CI:0.17-0.96). Dissatisfaction with general health services was strongly associated with reduced HIV testing. Coverage of high-priority screening services like HIV testing may benefit from improving overall health system quality.