Awareness, use and perception of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - a national cross-sectional survey among patients with a cancer diagnosis and healthcare providers.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-10-09 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11563-2
S Blödt, S Erstling, M Becker, G Carl, M Follmann, S Frenz, C Holmberg, T Langer, A Pachanov, D Pieper, M Nothacker
{"title":"Awareness, use and perception of patient versions of clinical practice guidelines - a national cross-sectional survey among patients with a cancer diagnosis and healthcare providers.","authors":"S Blödt, S Erstling, M Becker, G Carl, M Follmann, S Frenz, C Holmberg, T Langer, A Pachanov, D Pieper, M Nothacker","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11563-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To investigate awareness, use, and perceptions of the patient guidelines (PGs) of the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) and to explore general preferences regarding cancer information among patients and healthcare providers (HCPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two cross-sectional surveys among patients with cancer (November 2020-May 2021) and among HCPs (April -June 2021) were set up as anonymised, self-administered, semi-structured online surveys, including open-ended questions. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. Patients were recruited from national self-help organisations and certified cancer centres located all over Germany. HCPs were recruited from cancer centres, scientific medical societies and guideline groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 816 participating patients, 45% were aware of the GGPO-PGs, while 55% of the 455 participating HCPs were aware of them. Of those aware of the GGPO-PGs, 65% of patients and 86% of HCPs perceived them as helpful, while 95% in both groups saw them as comprehensive. Seventy-five percent of patients and 85% of HCPs were satisfied with the GGPO-PGs, 22%/13% were partially satisfied, and 3%/2% were rather/not at all satisfied. In addition to self-help organisations, physicians and hospitals were perceived as central in distributing the GGPO-PGs. More patients (78%) than HCPs (56%) stated a preference for detailed information, although the wish for concise information - e.g. decision aids - was concurrently expressed by the majority of all participants. Thematic analysis showed that up-to-dateness, trustworthiness, and supportive messaging are important properties for PGs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HCPs found the GGPO-PGs helpful, but awareness was low, which suggests that dissemination should be improved. This is also true for patients; however, further research needs to be done to increase the helpfulness of PGs for patients. Oncological PGs seem to be needed in different formats according to patients' situational needs. Theory-driven research should investigate how to best frame patient information in a supportive way.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465693/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11563-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To investigate awareness, use, and perceptions of the patient guidelines (PGs) of the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) and to explore general preferences regarding cancer information among patients and healthcare providers (HCPs).

Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys among patients with cancer (November 2020-May 2021) and among HCPs (April -June 2021) were set up as anonymised, self-administered, semi-structured online surveys, including open-ended questions. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. Patients were recruited from national self-help organisations and certified cancer centres located all over Germany. HCPs were recruited from cancer centres, scientific medical societies and guideline groups.

Results: Of 816 participating patients, 45% were aware of the GGPO-PGs, while 55% of the 455 participating HCPs were aware of them. Of those aware of the GGPO-PGs, 65% of patients and 86% of HCPs perceived them as helpful, while 95% in both groups saw them as comprehensive. Seventy-five percent of patients and 85% of HCPs were satisfied with the GGPO-PGs, 22%/13% were partially satisfied, and 3%/2% were rather/not at all satisfied. In addition to self-help organisations, physicians and hospitals were perceived as central in distributing the GGPO-PGs. More patients (78%) than HCPs (56%) stated a preference for detailed information, although the wish for concise information - e.g. decision aids - was concurrently expressed by the majority of all participants. Thematic analysis showed that up-to-dateness, trustworthiness, and supportive messaging are important properties for PGs.

Conclusions: HCPs found the GGPO-PGs helpful, but awareness was low, which suggests that dissemination should be improved. This is also true for patients; however, further research needs to be done to increase the helpfulness of PGs for patients. Oncological PGs seem to be needed in different formats according to patients' situational needs. Theory-driven research should investigate how to best frame patient information in a supportive way.

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
患者版临床实践指南的认知、使用和看法--一项针对癌症诊断患者和医疗服务提供者的全国性横断面调查。
背景:调查对德国肿瘤学指南项目(GGPO)患者指南(PGs)的认识、使用和看法,并探讨患者和医疗保健提供者(HCPs)对癌症信息的一般偏好:对癌症患者(2020 年 11 月至 2021 年 5 月)和医护人员(2021 年 4 月至 6 月)进行了两次横断面调查,采用匿名、自填、半结构化在线调查的形式,包括开放式问题。数据分析采用描述性统计和定性主题分析。患者来自德国各地的国家自助组织和认证癌症中心。医疗保健人员来自癌症中心、科学医学协会和指南团体:结果:在 816 名参与调查的患者中,45% 的人了解 GGPO-PGs,而在 455 名参与调查的 HCP 中,55% 的人了解 GGPO-PGs。在了解 GGPO-PGs 的人中,65% 的患者和 86% 的医疗保健人员认为 GGPO-PGs 有帮助,两组中 95% 的人认为 GGPO-PGs 内容全面。75%的患者和 85% 的高级保健人员对 GGPO-PGs 表示满意,22%/13% 表示部分满意,3%/2% 表示不太满意/完全不满意。除自助组织外,医生和医院也被认为是分发《普通门诊病人指南》的核心机构。尽管大多数参与者同时表示希望获得简明扼要的信息(如决策辅助工具),但表示希望获得详细信息的患者(78%)多于医疗保健人员(56%)。专题分析表明,最新信息、可信度和支持性信息是 PGs 的重要特性:结论:高级保健人员认为 GGPO-PGs 有帮助,但认知度较低,这表明应加强传播。对患者来说也是如此;不过,还需要进一步研究,以提高患者对PGs的帮助。肿瘤知识指导似乎需要根据患者的具体情况采用不同的形式。理论驱动的研究应探讨如何以支持性的方式为患者提供最佳信息。
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
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Employer support for health and social care registered professionals, their patients and service users involved in regulatory fitness to practise regulatory proceedings. Factors influencing the turnover intention for disease control and prevention workers in Northeast China: an empirical analysis based on logistic-ISM model. Qualitative drivers of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics use and resistance in Ethiopia. Supporting young people through the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: a multi-site qualitative longitudinal study. The potential promise and pitfalls of point-of-care viral load monitoring to expedite HIV treatment decision-making in rural Uganda: a qualitative study.
×
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