4.5 Article

Cancer information-seeking preferences linked to distinct patient experiences and differential satisfaction with cancer care

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 102, 期 6, 页码 1187-1193

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.01.009

关键词

Patient needs; Cancer information-seeking preferences; Information avoidance; Personalized cancer care; Person-centered care; Patients as partners; Satisfaction with cancer care

资金

  1. Rossy Cancer Network
  2. Christine and Herschel Victor/Hope & Cope Research Chair in Psychosocial Oncology based at McGill University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: True person-centered care (PCC) involves anticipating, responding to, and integrating patients' needs and preferences as the illness experience unfolds. PCC success rests, in part, on quality provider-patient communication and tailored information exchange. These processes can have profound effects on the patient experience, self-management and health outcomes including survival. Cancer information-seeking preferences (CISP) by patients are increasingly found to modulate illness and care processes. However, research has yet to document the CISP types and prevalence as well as their associations with satisfaction with care. Method: Individuals (N=2142) treated for cancer in the last 6 months completed the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) and a CISP measure. Results: Whereas 60.3% (n = 1292) reported wanting to actively seek information about their cancer, a surprisingly high percentage (i.e., 39.7%; n = 850) did not. Men reported avoiding cancer information to a greater extent than women, chi(2) (4, N= 2108) = 12.00, p = 0.02. CISP were also differentially associated with 6 key domains of satisfaction, with intense seekers consistently being less satisfied. Conclusion and practice implications: These findings underscore how CISP can significantly affect patients' cancer experience as well as their care satisfaction. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据