Patients' experiences with 'sludge' (administrative burden) in the cancer screening process and its relationship with screening completion, experience and health system distrust.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Family Medicine and Community Health Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1136/fmch-2024-002933
Michelle S Rockwell, Brianna Chang, Vivian Zagarese, Jamie K Turner, Ally Southworth, YingXing Wu, Paul Yeaton, Li Li, Jeffrey S Stein, Sarah H Parker, John W Epling
{"title":"Patients' experiences with 'sludge' (administrative burden) in the cancer screening process and its relationship with screening completion, experience and health system distrust.","authors":"Michelle S Rockwell, Brianna Chang, Vivian Zagarese, Jamie K Turner, Ally Southworth, YingXing Wu, Paul Yeaton, Li Li, Jeffrey S Stein, Sarah H Parker, John W Epling","doi":"10.1136/fmch-2024-002933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>'Sludge' refers to administrative burdens or frictions that preclude people from getting what they want or need (eg, duplicative forms, complicated instructions, long waiting times). This mixed methods study evaluated patients' perceptions of sludge in the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process and some impacts of this sludge.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods study design that comprised patient interviews and a patient survey. The interviews informed final survey revisions and captured contextual data about patients' experiences with sludge. Interview transcripts were inductively and deductively analysed to identify overarching themes. The survey quantified sludge, delayed or forgone screenings, screening experience (Net Promoter Score) and health system distrust (Health System Distrust Scale). We used χ<sup>2</sup> or t-tests for univariable comparisons and logistic or linear regressions to evaluate the association between cumulative sludge score and delayed or forgone screenings, screening experience and health system distrust. Results were integrated for interpretation.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Southeastern United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Patients who were 45-75 years of age, at average risk for CRC and had either completed or been referred for CRC screening (colonoscopy or stool-based test) within the previous 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>22 interview participants and 255 survey participants completed the study. 38 (15%) survey participants rated their screening experience as poor (Net Promoter Score=0-7 out of 10). The mean (SD) Health System Distrust Scale score was 22.4 (6.3) out of 45 possible points (higher score=greater distrust). Perceptions of sludge in the CRC screening process varied, with long waiting times and burdensome communication being the most common sources (58% and 35% of participants, respectively). Sludge was positively associated with delayed or forgone screenings (OR=1.42, 95% CI 1.28, 1.57, p<0.001), poor screening experience (OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.04, 1.28, p=0.009) and health system distrust (β=0.47, p<0.001). Qualitative findings add descriptive detail about sludge encountered, context to impacts experienced, and illustrate the heavy emotional impact of sludge: '<i>it just isn't worth it'</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Efforts to reduce sludge in the CRC screening process may improve timely completion of CRC screening, enhance patient experience and restore trust in the health system.</p>","PeriodicalId":44590,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine and Community Health","volume":"12 Suppl 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2024-002933","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: 'Sludge' refers to administrative burdens or frictions that preclude people from getting what they want or need (eg, duplicative forms, complicated instructions, long waiting times). This mixed methods study evaluated patients' perceptions of sludge in the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process and some impacts of this sludge.

Design: We employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods study design that comprised patient interviews and a patient survey. The interviews informed final survey revisions and captured contextual data about patients' experiences with sludge. Interview transcripts were inductively and deductively analysed to identify overarching themes. The survey quantified sludge, delayed or forgone screenings, screening experience (Net Promoter Score) and health system distrust (Health System Distrust Scale). We used χ2 or t-tests for univariable comparisons and logistic or linear regressions to evaluate the association between cumulative sludge score and delayed or forgone screenings, screening experience and health system distrust. Results were integrated for interpretation.

Setting: Southeastern United States.

Participants: Patients who were 45-75 years of age, at average risk for CRC and had either completed or been referred for CRC screening (colonoscopy or stool-based test) within the previous 12 months.

Results: 22 interview participants and 255 survey participants completed the study. 38 (15%) survey participants rated their screening experience as poor (Net Promoter Score=0-7 out of 10). The mean (SD) Health System Distrust Scale score was 22.4 (6.3) out of 45 possible points (higher score=greater distrust). Perceptions of sludge in the CRC screening process varied, with long waiting times and burdensome communication being the most common sources (58% and 35% of participants, respectively). Sludge was positively associated with delayed or forgone screenings (OR=1.42, 95% CI 1.28, 1.57, p<0.001), poor screening experience (OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.04, 1.28, p=0.009) and health system distrust (β=0.47, p<0.001). Qualitative findings add descriptive detail about sludge encountered, context to impacts experienced, and illustrate the heavy emotional impact of sludge: 'it just isn't worth it'.

Conclusion: Efforts to reduce sludge in the CRC screening process may improve timely completion of CRC screening, enhance patient experience and restore trust in the health system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者在癌症筛查过程中的 "淤积"(行政负担)体验及其与筛查完成度、体验和对医疗系统的不信任之间的关系。
目的:"淤积 "指的是妨碍人们获得他们想要或需要的东西的行政负担或摩擦(例如,重复的表格、复杂的说明、漫长的等待时间)。这项混合方法研究评估了患者对结直肠癌(CRC)筛查过程中 "淤积 "的看法以及 "淤积 "造成的一些影响:我们采用了探索性顺序混合方法研究设计,包括患者访谈和患者调查。访谈为调查的最终修订提供了依据,并获取了有关患者对淤血的体验的背景数据。对访谈记录进行归纳和演绎分析,以确定总体主题。调查量化了淤血、延迟或放弃筛查、筛查体验(净促进者得分)和对医疗系统的不信任(医疗系统不信任量表)。我们使用χ2或t检验进行单变量比较,使用逻辑或线性回归评估累积污泥得分与延迟或放弃筛查、筛查经验和医疗系统不信任之间的关联。对结果进行综合解释:地点:美国东南部:结果:22 名访谈参与者和 255 名调查参与者完成了研究。38名(15%)调查参与者将他们的筛查体验评为差(净促进者得分=0-7,满分为10)。卫生系统不信任量表的平均分(标度)为 22.4(6.3)分,满分为 45 分(分数越高=越不信任)。人们对 CRC 筛查过程中的 "污点 "看法不一,最常见的是等待时间长和沟通繁琐(分别占参与者的 58% 和 35%)。污泥与延迟或放弃筛查呈正相关(OR=1.42,95% CI 1.28,1.57,坑不值得):努力减少 CRC 筛查过程中的污泥可提高 CRC 筛查的及时性、改善患者体验并恢复对医疗系统的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine and Community Health (FMCH) is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the topics of family medicine, general practice and community health. FMCH strives to be a leading international journal that promotes ‘Health Care for All’ through disseminating novel knowledge and best practices in primary care, family medicine, and community health. FMCH publishes original research, review, methodology, commentary, reflection, and case-study from the lens of population health. FMCH’s Asian Focus section features reports of family medicine development in the Asia-pacific region. FMCH aims to be an exemplary forum for the timely communication of medical knowledge and skills with the goal of promoting improved health care through the practice of family and community-based medicine globally. FMCH aims to serve a diverse audience including researchers, educators, policymakers and leaders of family medicine and community health. We also aim to provide content relevant for researchers working on population health, epidemiology, public policy, disease control and management, preventative medicine and disease burden. FMCH does not impose any article processing charges (APC) or submission charges.
期刊最新文献
The role of the primary healthcare research community in addressing the social and structural determinants of health: a call to action from NAPCRG 2023. Identification of research gaps to improve care for healthy ageing: a scoping review. Temporal trends and practice variation of paediatric diagnostic tests in primary care: retrospective analysis of 14 million tests. General practice trainee, supervisor and educator perspectives on the transitions in postgraduate training: a scoping review. Reducing strain on primary healthcare systems through innovative models of care: the impact of direct access physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions-an interrupted time series analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1