Do survivorship care plans impact patients' evaluations of care? A randomized evaluation with gynecologic oncology patients
Do survivorship care plans impact patients' evaluations of care? A randomized evaluation with gynecologic oncology patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.02.037
复制
发表时间：
2013-06-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Andersen, Barbara L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brothers, Brittany M.;Easley, Andrea;Andersen, Barbara L.
目标。尽管医学研究所建议将生存护理计划（SCP）提供给癌症患者，但迄今为止很少有健康服务结果评估。治疗后一年以上的妇科癌症幸存者可以参加评估所提供的保健服务及其对护理质量的看法的评估。随机、嵌套、横断面设计用于大型妇科肿瘤学实践。一半（n = 3）的医生被随机分配在随访期间向患者提供并讨论SCP，另一半则没有。在他们访问之后，所有病人都被告知，正在对这种做法进行卫生服务评估。感兴趣的患者完成了一项26项匿名调查，评估行政、临床和教育卫生服务、书面材料的有用性以及对护理质量的看法。在接受调查的121名幸存者中，64人接受了scp治疗，57人处于无scp状态。作为效度检验，有一个问题询问了在访问期间收到的教育材料，不同条件之间存在预期的显著差异（X-2 = 5.513, p = 0.019；更多的SCP患者报告收到了材料）。然而，当患者评价卫生服务（fs>.37）或材料的有用性和护理的感知（fs>.19）时，情况之间没有差异。提供保健服务和护理满意度评级的妇科肿瘤患者提供了同等的评估，无论他们是否收到了医生的SCP。因此，如果要使scp成为改善保健服务结果的工具，仍有必要对其进行进一步评价。(C) 2013爱思唯尔公司版权所有。
Objective. Despite recommendations from the Institute of Medicine regarding survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery to cancer patients, there have been few health service outcome evaluations thus far.Methods. Gynecologic cancer survivors who were up to one-year post-treatment could participate in an evaluation assessing the health services provided and their perceptions of quality of care. A randomized, nested, cross-sectional design was used in a large group gynecologic oncology practice. Half (n = 3) of the physicians were randomized to provide and discuss a SCP to patients during a follow-up visit, and the other half did not. Following their visits, all patients were informed that a health service evaluation of the practice was being conducted. Interested patients completed an anonymous 26-item survey assessing administrative, clinical, and educational health services, helpfulness of written materials, and perceptions of quality of care.Results. Of the 121 survivors surveyed, 64 received SCPs and 57 were in the no-SCP condition. As a validity check, one question asked about educational materials received during the visit with an expected significant difference noted between conditions (X-2 = 5.513, p = .019; more SCP patients reported receiving materials). However, there were no differences between conditions when patients rated health services (Fs > .37) or helpfulness of materials and perceptions of care (Fs > .19).Conclusions. Gynecologic oncology patients providing ratings of health services and satisfaction with care provided equivalent evaluations, regardless if they had/had not received a SCP from the physician. Thus, the need remains for further evaluations of SCPs if they are to be vehicles for improving health service outcomes. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.