Exploring the decision to forgo conventional cancer treatment by men with prostate cancer: a 3-year mixed-methods study

Author(s):  
MJ Verhoef ◽  
S Rose ◽  
M White
BMC Urology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Albaugh ◽  
Nat Sufrin ◽  
Brittany R. Lapin ◽  
Jacqueline Petkewicz ◽  
Sandi Tenfelde

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akanksha Mehta ◽  
Craig Evan Pollack ◽  
Theresa W. Gillespie ◽  
Ashley Duby ◽  
Caroline Carter ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 1567-1575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Matheson ◽  
Sarah Wilding ◽  
Richard Wagland ◽  
Johana Nayoan ◽  
Carol Rivas ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 155-155
Author(s):  
Echo L. Warner ◽  
Brynn Fowler ◽  
Samantha Pannier ◽  
Douglas Beaty Fair ◽  
Holly Perlman ◽  
...  

155 Background: We describe patient navigator preferences for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients by geographical distance from cancer treatment centers. Methods: In this mixed methods study, N = 39 participants were recruited primarily from oncology clinics in Utah. Participants were diagnosed between ages 15-39 and had completed ≥ 1 month of treatment. Participants were interviewed and surveyed on preferences for patient navigation. Thematic content analysis revealed navigation preferences based on participants’ travel distance from their treatment center, classified as < 20 miles (local) and ≥ 20 miles (distance). Qualitative data was quantized and the proportion of codes in each theme was compared by travel distance using two-tailed z-scores. Results: Mean travel distance to cancer treatment center was 53.5 miles (SD = 77.4); 53.8% of participants were local ( < 20 miles) and 46.2% were distance ( ≥ 20 miles). There were no differences by age or ethnicity. Local patients were less likely to endorse that travel distance was a challenge for their oncology appointments than distance patients (25.0% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.01). Local patients reported a higher proportion of codes (62.5%) related to believing a patient navigator would be helpful to them compared to distance patients (37.5%, p = 0.01). Connecting with a patient navigator at the time of first diagnosis was endorsed by more local patients than distance (66.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.01). Local patients reported a greater need for navigation support regarding finances (local 69.6% vs. distance 30.4%, p = < 0.001) and social support (local 87.5% vs. distance 12.5%, p = 0.03). Most participants, regardless of travel distance, desired navigation primarily via telephone (audio and text messaging). Conclusions: While AYAs with cancer living further from their treatment location were more likely to report that travel was a barrier, local AYAs reported more needs related to patient navigation than remote patients. Patient navigators may need to consider different support services for distanced patients including strategies to address geographic barriers to care.


Author(s):  
Eila Watson ◽  
Sarah Wilding ◽  
Lauren Matheson ◽  
Jo Brett ◽  
Eilis McCaughan ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e035448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Bierbaum ◽  
Jeffrey Braithwaite ◽  
Gaston Arnolda ◽  
Geoffrey P Delaney ◽  
Winston Liauw ◽  
...  

IntroductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to reduce inappropriate clinical variation and improve the quality of care. Barriers to CPGs include a lack of awareness of CPGs, access to them, time pressures and concerns regarding the evidence underpinning CPG development, implementation and dissemination. The objectives of this study are to assess clinicians’ attitudes to CPGs for cancer treatment and the perceived barriers to and facilitators of CPG adherence in order to inform the implementation of cancer treatment CPGs.Methods and analysisA mixed methods study will be conducted using a three-phase, sequential design, with each phase informing the next. In phase 1, a qualitative study using recorded interviews will investigate clinicians’ attitudes to CPGs for cancer treatment and perceptions of barriers and facilitators to CPG adherence (n=30); interview transcripts will be analysed thematically. In phase 2, a survey will quantify the frequency of attitudes, barriers and facilitators identified in phase 1, in a broader clinical sample (n=200). In phase 3, a workshop forum will be held to facilitate discussions examining the implications of phase 1 and 2 findings for cancer CPG implementation strategies (n=40) leading to recommendations for improvements to practice. The workshop discussion will be recorded, and the transcript will be analysed thematically.Ethics and disseminationThis study has received ethics approval in New South Wales, Australia (2019/ETH11722, #52019568810127). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will form part of a doctoral thesis and be presented at national and international conferences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document