Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient perceptions of the quality of their cancer care.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
286 Background: COVID has had a significant impact on how cancer care is delivered. Numerous modifications to care aimed at reducing in-person visits, and mitigating potential issues with staff and resource shortages were introduced, including the implementation of virtual visits. As many of the changes to cancer care are likely to persist beyond the pandemic, we undertook a survey to understand patients’ perceptions of the impact of the pandemic on the quality of cancer care that they received. Methods: We developed an electronic survey guided by the Picker Institute’s eight principles of patient-centred care. Patients >18 years of age with a valid email address on file who have had a visit in the gastrointestinal clinic at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Toronto, Canada between 03/2020 and 05/2021 were recruited via email invitation in 10/2021 to anonymously participate. Logistic regression models were utilized to examine adjusted associations between demographic and clinical variables, and reporting a negative perception of care. Results: The response rate was 17.1% (438/2563); after excluding responses from those who are no longer patients and incomplete responses, 358 responses were included in the final analysis. Respondents were most commonly >65 years of age (46.6%), male (48.6%), college/university educated (55.5%) and in follow-up phase of their disease (54.2%). Approximately half of respondents (56.1%) had some experience with care at PM prior to the pandemic, while the remaining patients were referred during. Most respondents (76.3%) indicated that, overall, they were satisfied with the care they received during COVID. Compared to patients who experienced care at PM prior to the pandemic, patients referred during COVID were 2.5 times more likely to believe that patients received worse care during COVID than those treated prior (OR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.08-5.44). Most respondents (69.5%) reported that virtual appointments positively impacted the quality of their cancer care. Adequacy of emotional support was the most negatively perceived dimension of patient-centred care, whereby 18.7% of patients felt they were provided with inadequate information on support services available to them, and 17.6% felt that they had received inadequate support. Relative to those in follow-up, patients with a newly diagnosed cancer were more likely to report receipt of inadequate emotional support (OR: 5.69; 95% CI: 2.18-14.82). Conclusions: Most patients reported being satisfied with the quality of care provided to them during COVID and reported a positive impact of virtual appointments on their care. Future quality improvement efforts should focus on how to improve dissemination of information on available support services and access to appropriate emotional supports, particularly for newly diagnosed patients.
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 | 0,004 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».