32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Qualitative analysis of patients’ feedback from a PROMs survey of cancer patients in England

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          This study examined how free-text comments from cancer survivors could complement formal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), as part of the England PROMs survey programme for cancer.

          Design

          A qualitative content analysis was conducted of responses to a single open-ended free-text question placed at the end of the cross-sectional population-based postal questionnaire.

          Setting

          Individuals were identified through three UK Cancer Registries and questionnaires were posted to their home addresses.

          Participants

          A random sample of individuals (n=4992) diagnosed with breast, colorectal, non-Hodgkins lymphoma or prostate cancer at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years earlier.

          Results

          3300 participants completed the survey (68% response rate). Of these 1056 (32%) completed the free-text comments box, indicating a high level of commitment to provide written feedback on patient experience. Almost a fifth (19%) related experiences of excellent care during the treatment phase, with only 8% reporting negative experiences. This contrasted with experiences of care after primary cancer treatment where the majority were negative. Factors impacting negatively upon patient-reported outcomes included the emotional impact of cancer; poor experiences of treatment and care; comorbidities, treatment side effects, social difficulties and inadequate preparation for a wide range of sometimes long-lasting on-going physical and psychological problems. Mediating factors assisting recovery incorporated both professional-led factors, such as quality of preparation for anticipated problems and aftercare services, and participant-led factors, such as learning from other cancer survivors and self-learning through trial and error. The support of friends and family was also a factor in participants' outcomes.

          Conclusions

          This analysis of free-text comments complements quantitative analysis of PROMs measure's by illuminating relationships between factors that impact on quality of life (QoL) and indicate why cancer patients may experience significantly worse QoL than the general population. The data suggest more systematic preparation and aftercare for individuals to self-manage post-treatment problems might improve QoL outcomes among cancer survivors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980-2003).

          Understanding what cancer patients need to know and from whom they receive information during the course of care is essential to ensuring quality care. We reviewed 112 articles published from 1980 to 2003 and developed a typology summarizing cancer patients' information needs and the sources from which they receive information. The majority of articles focused on information needs and sources during the diagnosis and treatment phase. Thus, the most frequent information need was treatment-related (38.1%). The most frequent information source was health professionals (27.3%). We examined patients' information needs and sources along the continuum of care and found that during diagnosis and treatment, information needs about the stage of disease, treatment options, and side-effects of treatment were prominent; during post-treatment, patients continued to need information about treatment, and information about recovery was also important. Future research should examine cancer patients' information needs and sources throughout their cancer journey.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Standardizing patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer clinical trials: a patient-reported outcomes measurement information system initiative.

            Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptom scales or more broad-based health-related quality-of-life measures, play an important role in oncology clinical trials. They frequently are used to help evaluate cancer treatments, as well as for supportive and palliative oncology care. To be most beneficial, these PROs must be relevant to patients and clinicians, valid, and easily understood and interpreted. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Network, part of the National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiative, aims to improve appreciably how PROs are selected and assessed in clinical research, including clinical trials. PROMIS is establishing a publicly available resource of standardized, accurate, and efficient PRO measures of major self-reported health domains (eg, pain, fatigue, emotional distress, physical function, social function) that are relevant across chronic illnesses including cancer. PROMIS is also developing measures of self-reported health domains specifically targeted to cancer, such as sleep/wake function, sexual function, cognitive function, and the psychosocial impacts of the illness experience (ie, stress response and coping; shifts in self-concept, social interactions, and spirituality). We outline the qualitative and quantitative methods by which PROMIS measures are being developed and adapted for use in clinical oncology research. At the core of this activity is the formation and application of item banks using item response theory modeling. We also present our work in the fatigue domain, including a short-form measure, as a sample of PROMIS methodology and work to date. Plans for future validation and application of PROMIS measures are discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Recovery and self-management support following primary cancer treatment

              Background: Around 2 million people are living with or beyond cancer in the UK. However, experiences and needs following primary treatment are relatively neglected. Following treatment, survivors may feel particularly vulnerable and face threats to their identity. We present a conceptual framework to inform areas of self-management support to facilitate recovery of health and well-being following primary cancer treatment. Methods: To explain the framework, we draw on data from two studies: UK-wide consultation about cancer patients' research priorities and survivors' self-management in the year following primary cancer treatment. Results: Self-confidence may be low following treatment. Recovery includes rebuilding lost confidence. Support to manage the impact of cancer on everyday life was a priority. Self-management support included health professionals, peers, employers, family, friends and online resources. However, support was not always available and confidence to access support could be low. Conclusion: Cancer survivors may struggle to self-manage following primary treatment where confidence is low or support is lacking. Low confidence may be a significant barrier to accessing support. Supporting recovery of self-confidence is an important aspect of recovery alongside physical and psychosocial problems in the context of changing health care and cancer follow-up.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2013
                10 April 2013
                : 3
                : 4
                : e002316
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [2 ]Department of Paediatric Oncology, Leeds General Infirmary , Leeds, UK
                [3 ]Department of Health, Cancer Policy Team , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Jessica Corner; J.L.Corner@ 123456soton.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2012-002316
                10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002316
                3641435
                23578681
                d63e99df-5124-4c12-8ce1-8d01962aecc0
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

                History
                : 6 November 2012
                : 27 February 2013
                : 4 March 2013
                Categories
                Oncology
                Research
                1506
                1717
                1722
                1725

                Medicine
                oncology,qualitative research
                Medicine
                oncology, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article