Perceptions and recall of treatment for prostate cancer: A survey of two populations

Amy Brown , Alex Tan , Lux Anable , Emily Callander , Richard De Abreu Lourenco , Tilley Pain
{"title":"Perceptions and recall of treatment for prostate cancer: A survey of two populations","authors":"Amy Brown ,&nbsp;Alex Tan ,&nbsp;Lux Anable ,&nbsp;Emily Callander ,&nbsp;Richard De Abreu Lourenco ,&nbsp;Tilley Pain","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2022.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The complexity of prostate cancer care can impact on patient understanding and participation in shared decision-making. This study used a survey-based approach to investigate patients’ recall of their prostate cancer treatment, and more broadly, to understand the perceptions of patients and the general population of prostate cancer treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>The survey was completed by 236 patients with prostate cancer (PCa cohort) and 240 participants from the general population of Australia (GenPop cohort). Free-text comments from both cohorts were analysed using content analysis. The PCa cohort reported which treatments and image-guidance related procedures they had received. These patient-reports were compared to medical records and analysed using proportion agreement, kappa statistics and regression analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>135 (57%) PCa and 99 (41%) GenPop respondents provided at least one comment. Five major themes were identified by both cohorts: sharing experiences of treatment; preferences insights and reflections; mindsets; general commentary on the survey; and factors missing from the survey. There was overall good treatment recall amongst the PCa cohort, with proportions of correct recall ranging from 97.3% for chemotherapy to 66.8% for hormone therapy. There was a tendency for younger patients (&lt;70 years old) to recall their hormone treatment more correctly.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Participant comments suggest the complexity of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the varying perceptions and experiences of participants with prostate cancer. Patients’ recall overall was good for both treatment and image-guidance related procedures/approaches, however the poorer recall of hormone therapy requires further investigation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7f/29/main.PMC9594631.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632422000427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The complexity of prostate cancer care can impact on patient understanding and participation in shared decision-making. This study used a survey-based approach to investigate patients’ recall of their prostate cancer treatment, and more broadly, to understand the perceptions of patients and the general population of prostate cancer treatment.

Method

The survey was completed by 236 patients with prostate cancer (PCa cohort) and 240 participants from the general population of Australia (GenPop cohort). Free-text comments from both cohorts were analysed using content analysis. The PCa cohort reported which treatments and image-guidance related procedures they had received. These patient-reports were compared to medical records and analysed using proportion agreement, kappa statistics and regression analysis.

Results

135 (57%) PCa and 99 (41%) GenPop respondents provided at least one comment. Five major themes were identified by both cohorts: sharing experiences of treatment; preferences insights and reflections; mindsets; general commentary on the survey; and factors missing from the survey. There was overall good treatment recall amongst the PCa cohort, with proportions of correct recall ranging from 97.3% for chemotherapy to 66.8% for hormone therapy. There was a tendency for younger patients (<70 years old) to recall their hormone treatment more correctly.

Conclusion

Participant comments suggest the complexity of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, and the varying perceptions and experiences of participants with prostate cancer. Patients’ recall overall was good for both treatment and image-guidance related procedures/approaches, however the poorer recall of hormone therapy requires further investigation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
对癌症治疗的认知和回忆:对两个人群的调查。
前列腺癌治疗的复杂性会影响患者对共同决策的理解和参与。本研究采用基于调查的方法调查患者对前列腺癌治疗的回忆,更广泛地了解患者和一般人群对前列腺癌治疗的看法。方法该调查由236名前列腺癌患者(PCa队列)和240名澳大利亚普通人群(GenPop队列)完成。使用内容分析对两个队列的自由文本评论进行分析。PCa队列报告了他们接受了哪些治疗和图像指导相关的程序。将这些患者报告与医疗记录进行比较,并使用比例一致性、kappa统计和回归分析进行分析。结果135名(57%)PCa受访者和99名(41%)GenPop受访者提供了至少一条评论。两个队列都确定了五个主要主题:分享治疗经验;偏好洞察与反思;心态;对调查的一般性评论;以及调查中遗漏的因素。在PCa队列中,总体上有良好的治疗回忆,正确回忆的比例从化疗的97.3%到激素治疗的66.8%不等。年轻患者(70岁)有更准确回忆激素治疗的趋势。结论参与者的意见反映了前列腺癌诊断和治疗的复杂性,以及参与者对前列腺癌的不同看法和经历。总体而言,患者对治疗和图像引导相关程序/方法的回忆良好,但激素治疗的回忆较差需要进一步调查。
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
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
67 days
期刊最新文献
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review A systematic review of prostate bed motion and anisotropic margins in post-prostatectomy external beam radiotherapy International virtual radiation therapy professional development: Reflections on a twinning collaboration between a low/middle and high income country A code orange for traffic-light-protocols as a communication mechanism in IGRT On the trail of CBCT-guided adaptive rectal boost radiotherapy, does daily delineation require a radiation oncologist?
×
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