Patient and family satisfaction with cancer-related information: A review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals and families confronted with cancer experience many and varied educational needs.Cancer education is an important aspect of their care.Yet, over the past three decades, the literature has consistently identified that many patients and family members are dissatisfied with cancer education.This paper examines the literature relevant to one aspect of satisfaction with cancer education, patient and family member satisfaction with cancer-related information, according to patient, provider, and information factors.Gaps in the research are identified and discussed in relation to future research recommendations.The paper concludes with applications to clinical practice.Education is considered important for anyone dealing with a health problem, but individuals and families dealing with cancer perceive education to be of paramount importance.Individuals with cancer and their families tend to want as much information as possible about the diagnosis, treatment, and other aspects of cancer care, whether this information is good or bad (Cassileth, Zupkis, Sutton-Smith, & March, 1980;Jones et al., 1999;Tattersall, Butow, Griffin, & Dunn, 1994;Turner, Maher, Young, Young, & Hudson, 1996).The need for new information and skills throughout the entire cancer experience is great.Individuals and families must deal with the varied phases of the experience, the pervasiveness of the illness, and the continuous, and often rapidly-changing needs.A considerable body of research has focused on patient satisfaction with cancer care in general.Less attention has been devoted specifically to satisfaction with patient education.Yet, Sitzia and Wood (1998a) identified patient education as one of four components of satisfaction for cancer outpatients.While giving and receiving information is recognized as an important part of the educational process, there has been limited exploration of patient satisfaction with the information received.Patient dissatisfaction with information provision dates back to the 1970s (Risser, 1975).Accumulating evidence since that time suggests that patients with cancer, irrespective of the type of cancer or the phase of the illness, are often dissatisfied with the information they receive (Northouse, Schafer, Tipton, & Metivier, 1999; Sitzia & Wood, 1998a, 1998b).The prevailing dissatisfaction heightens the importance of understanding the factors that influence patient satisfaction with information provision (Cassileth et al., 1980;Derdiarian, 1989;Fitch, Johnson, Gray, & Franssen, 1999).The purpose of this paper is to examine research related to patients' and family members' satisfaction with cancer information.We will present a synthesis and analysis of the available literature related to patient and family satisfaction with cancer information.The paper will conclude by highlighting gaps in existing research and offering implications for clinical practice and future research. Patient-and family-related factorsResearch supports patient-and family-related factors as important determinants of information satisfaction.A range of patient-and family-related factors that appear to influence satisfaction has been identified.These factors include expectations, preferences for type of information, information-seeking, anxiety, demographics, and compliance. ExpectationsThe general satisfaction literature suggests that expectations influence patient satisfaction with care among patients from medicalsurgical, gynecologic, and specialty inpatient units (Abramowitz, Coté, & Berry, 1987;Green, Coupland, & Kitzinger, 1990).How expectations interact with patient satisfaction in the cancer population is relatively unclear because there has been limited study of this Patient and family satisfaction with cancer-related information: A review of the literature
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".