4.7 Article

Determinants of patient satisfaction in oncology settings from European and Asian countries:: Preliminary results based on the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 43, Issue 2, Pages 323-330

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.10.016

Keywords

patient satisfaction; determinant; cross-cultural; oncology

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [4U10 CA11488-31, 5U10 CA11488-35, 3U10 CA11488-31, 2U10 CA11488-31] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated significantly with hospitalised cancer patients' satisfaction with care. Patients were recruited from four geographical/cultural groups, including five European countries and Taiwan. They rated their level of satisfaction by completing the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire at home. Additionally, data were collected on the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and the quality of life of the patients, as well as on institutional characteristics. Of 762 patients recruited, 647 (85%) returned a completed questionnaire. The number of nurses and doctors per bed, institution size, geo-cultural origin, ward setting, teaching/non-teaching setting, treatment toxicity, global health status, participation in clinical trials and education level were all associated significantly at the multivariate level with satisfaction with doctor and nurse interpersonal skills, information provision, availability, and/or overall satisfaction. A number of patient-, institutional- and culture-related factors are associated with the perceived quality of cancer care. Future studies, with appropriate sampling frames and stratification procedures, are needed to better understand cross-national and cross-cultural differences in cancer patient satisfaction. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available