4.4 Article

Patient preferences for timing and access to radiation therapy

期刊

CURRENT ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 279-286

出版社

MULTIMED INC
DOI: 10.3747/co.22.2532

关键词

Radiation therapy; health service capacity; patient-centred care; preferences

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Patient preferences for radiation therapy (RT) access were investigated. Methods Patients completing a course of RT at 6 centres received a 17-item survey that rated preferences for time of day; day of week; actual, ideal, and reasonable travel times for RT; and actual, ideal, and reasonable times between referral and first oncologic consultation. Patients receiving single-fraction RT or brachytherapy alone were excluded. Results Of the respondents who returned surveys (n = 1053), 54% were women, and 74% had received more than 15 RT fractions. With respect to appointment times, 88% agreed or strongly agreed that RT between 08h00 and 16h30 was preferred; 14%-15% preferred 07h30-08h00 or 16h30-17h00; 10% preferred 17h00-18h00; and 6% or fewer preferred times before 07h30 or after 18h00. A preference not to receive RT before 07h30 or after 18h00 was expressed by 30% or more of the respondents. When days of the week were considered, 18% and 11% would have preferred to receive RT on a Saturday or Sunday respectively; 52% and 55% would have preferred not to receive RT on those days. A travel time of 1 hour or less for RT was reported by 82%, but 61% felt that a travel time of 1 hour or more was reasonable. A first consultation within 2 weeks of referral was felt to be ideal or reasonable by 88% and 73% of patients respectively. Conclusions An RT service designed to meet patient preferences would make most capacity available between 08h00 and 16h30 on weekdays and provide 10%-20% of RT capacity on weekends and during 07h30-08h00 and 16h30-18h00 on weekdays. Approximately 80%, but not all, of the responding patients preferred a 2-week or shorter interval between referral and first oncologic consultation.

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

4.4
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