An Analysis of Health Care Team Communication Needs Among Younger vs Older Breast Cancer Survivors: Web-Based Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Prior studies indicate that the age of onset of breast cancer is an important element in considering communication between patients and the health care team. Younger women aged 45 and under diagnosed with breast cancer are often at a higher risk of being more vulnerable to psychosocial issues compared to older women aged 46 years and above. Few studies have examined age differences in patient perceptions of treatment-related discussion and communication during transition with their health care team. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this survey were (1) to better understand breast cancer survivors' perspectives regarding communication with health care providers during treatment and during transition to posttreatment care; and (2) to determine the differences between younger women with breast cancer (≤45 years of age) and older women (≥46 years of age). It was hypothesized that (1) breast cancer survivors' psychosocial and finance-related communications with health care providers may lack effectiveness; (2) younger women experience greater needs for patient-centered communication with physicians and health care providers, especially about psychosocial care and transition to posttreatment care; and (3) younger breast cancer patients (≤45 years of age) need more information on survivorship and follow-up care. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted with 143 women in Central Texas with 35% (n=50) aged 45 years or under and 65% (n=93) aged 46 years and above. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to assess differences in participants' perceptions about communication with health care providers by age group: younger (≤45 years of age) and older (≥46 years of age) women. RESULTS: Statistically significant results pertained to rating health care team and patient discussions about transition from treatment to posttreatment using scores of 0 as "no discussion" and 100 as "in-depth discussion." For the questions about management of posttreatment care, the overall mean score of the groups was 56.26 and that of the younger group was 43.96; the mean score of the older group was 61.96 (P=.02). For the question about the timing of follow-up appointments, the overall mean score was 64.29; the mean score of the younger group was 54.44, and that of the older group was 68.88 (P=.05). All the group scores related to psychosocial and financial support discussions with health care providers were low, with a rollup average of only 30.02 out of 100, suggesting that this is an important area for improving patient-centered communication. CONCLUSIONS: For all patients, transition from treatment to posttreatment requires a greater level of engagement and communication with the health care team. It appears that younger patients aged ≤45 years require more in-depth and personalized messaging to better understand their posttreatment care requirements.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».