Archives

  • 2019-07
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2021-03
  • br D Weintraub S L Maliski A Fink S Choe

    2020-07-27


    [19] D. Weintraub, S.L. Maliski, A. Fink, S. Choe,MANUSCRIPTM.S.Litwin,Suitabilityofprostatecancereducation materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials, Patient Education and Counseling. 55 (2004) 275-280.
    [20] C. Tian, S. Champlin, M. Mackert, A. Lazard, D. Agrawal, Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 80 (2014) 284-90.
    Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the Suitability Assessment of Materials
    Section 4 total 55 4.3 0.8 Section 5: Learning Stimulation and Motivation
    SAM: Suitability Assessment of Materials; SD: Standard Deviation;
    Item scoring: 0=not suitable, 1=adequate, 2=superior.
    Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the DISCERN items
    DISCERN factors and items n mean SD
    Reliability
    Clear when information was produced 55 2.7 1.3
    Details of additional sources 55 3.8 1.5
    Treatment Choices
    Describes how treatments work 55 1.7 1.1
    Describes benefits of treatments 55 2.3 1.2
    Describes risks of treatments 55 1.2 0.4
    Describes what would happen without treatment 55 1.9 1.1
    Describes how treatments affect quality of life 55 2.5 1.1
    Clear that Resiniferatoxin there may be more than one treatment 55 3.9 1.5
    choice
    Supports shared decision-making 55 1.1 0.4
    DISCERN score:
    Item scoring: 1 to 5; SD: standard deviation.
    Table 3. Descriptive statistics of unmet needs items.
    Unmet needs factors and items n mean SD Domain 1: Comprehensive Cancer Care 55 1.5 1.3 1a) Be told about the help healthcare professionals can offer 55 0.3 0.4 1b) Have a supportive relationship with healthcare professionals 55 0.1 0.3 1c) Access to health care services 55 0.1 0.2 1d) Have possibilities to participate or help in patient’s care 55 0.7 0.4 1e) Information provided by healthcare professionals was appropriate 55 0.1 1f) Obtain the best possible care for patients 55 0.1 0.3 1g) Co-ordination and continuity of care 55 0.2 0.3
    Domain 2: Emotional and Psychological 55 1.9 1.2 2a) Help dealing with own emotional distress 55 0.6 0.5 2b) Get emotional support for self/have someone to talk to 55 0.7 0.4 2c) Know how to provide emotional support to patient or others 55 0.3 0.4 2c) Know how to provide emotional support to patient or others 55 0.3 0.4 2d) Manage fears about the situation getting worse 55 0.1 0.3 2e) Find meaning (self or partner) 55 0.2 0.4
    Domain 4: Relationship 55 1.2 1.3 4a) Help communicating with patient about illness and his/her concerns 55 0.4 0.4 4b) Have an intimate relationship with the patient and consideration for sexual
    Unmet Needs Total 55 9.9 5.8 Item scoring: 0=need not addressed, 0.5=need acknowledged, but no detailed
    information,
    , 1=detailed information to address need; SD: standard deviation.
    Journal of Geriatric Oncology xxx (2019) xxx
    Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
    Journal of Geriatric Oncology
    An examination of the relationship between patient satisfaction with healthcare and quality of life in a geriatric population with cancer in the Southeastern United States
    Andres Azuero a,b, , Courtney P. Williams c, Maria Pisu b,d, Stacey A. Ingram c, Kelly M. Kenzik b,c,e, Grant R. Williams b,c,e, Gabrielle B. Rocque b,c,e,f
    a School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), United States of America
    b Comprehensive Cancer Center, UAB, United States of America
    c Division of Hematology Oncology, UAB, United States of America
    d Division of Preventive Medicine, UAB, United States of America
    e Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, UAB, United States of America
    f Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, UAB, United States of America
    Article history:
    Received in revised form 8 January 2019 Accepted 20 February 2019 Available online xxxx
    Keywords:
    Patient satisfaction with care
    Quality of life
    Oncology
    Medicare
    Geriatric patients 
    Background: Understanding factors that impact patient satisfaction with cancer care within the growing popula-tion of older adults living with cancer will contribute to tailoring programs that address patient needs and expec-tations. Further, patient satisfaction is a determinant of healthcare organizations' institutional performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between patient satisfaction with care and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among Medicare recipients with common cancers types (breast, prostate, or lung cancer).