Dataset Information

Symptoms and problems reported by patients with non-cancer diseases through open-ended questions in specialist palliative care: a national register-based study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Since 2010, a comprehensive symptom/problem (S/P) assessment has been carried out in Danish specialist palliative care using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire and the open-ended "Write In three Symptoms/Problems" (WISP) instrument. On WISP patients can report up to three S/Ps not included in the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. However, little is known about which S/Ps patients with non-cancer diseases report using WISP. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and severity of S/Ps reported on WISP by non-cancer patients in specialist palliative care and compared these S/Ps with those previously reported by cancer patients.

Methods

This register-based study collected data from the Danish Palliative Care Database. We included adult patients with non-cancer diseases answering the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL at admittance to specialist palliative care between 2016 and 2021. WISP responses were qualitatively categorized, and their prevalence and severity calculated.

Results

Of the 2323 patients with non-cancer diseases answering the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, 812 (34.9%) reported at least one S/P using WISP. A total of 1340 S/Ps were reported on WISP, of which 56.7% were not included in the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL (i.e., were new). Edema, existential problems, dizziness, cough, and dysphagia were the most prevalent new S/Ps. Overall, 88.7% of the S/Ps were scored as moderate-severe. The prevalence of S/Ps reported on WISP did not significantly differ between cancer and non-cancer patients, except for existential problems, dysphagia, myoclonus, speaking problems, sweats, and vomiting.

Conclusion

The similarities and differences in the prevalence of the most common S/Ps reported on WISP confirm that WISP improves symptom assessment regardless of patient diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Rojas-Concha L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10837258 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Symptoms and problems reported by patients with non-cancer diseases through open-ended questions in specialist palliative care: a national register-based study.

Rojas-Concha Leslye L Hansen Maiken Bang MB Groenvold Mogens M

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20240202 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Since 2010, a comprehensive symptom/problem (S/P) assessment has been carried out in Danish specialist palliative care using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire and the open-ended "Write In three Symptoms/Problems" (WISP) instrument. On WISP patients can report up to three S/Ps not included in the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. However, little is known about which S/Ps patients with non-cancer diseases report using WISP. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and severity of S/Ps reported ...[more]

PMID: 38305835

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDichotomisation of statistical significance, rather than interpretation of effect sizes supported by confidence intervals, is a long-standing problem.MethodsWe distributed an online survey to clinical trial statisticians across the UK, Australia and Canada asking about their experiences, perspectives and practices with respect to interpretation of statistical findings from randomised trials. We report a descriptive analysis of the closed-ended questions and a thematic analysis of the open-ended questions.ResultsWe obtained 101 responses across a broad range of career stages (24% professors; 51% senior lecturers; 22% junior statisticians) and areas of work (28% early phase trials; 44% drug trials; 38% health service trials). The majority (93%) believed that statistical findings should be interpreted by considering (minimal) clinical importance of treatment effects, but many (61%) said quantifying clinically important effect sizes was difficult, and fewer (54%) followed this approach in practice. Thematic analysis identified several barriers to forming a consensus on the statistical interpretation of the study findings, including: the dynamics within teams, lack of knowledge or difficulties in communicating that knowledge, as well as external pressures. External pressures included the pressure to publish definitive findings and statistical review which can sometimes be unhelpful but can at times be a saving grace. However, the concept of the minimally important difference was identified as a particularly poorly defined, even nebulous, construct which lies at the heart of much disagreement and confusion in the field.ConclusionThe majority of participating statisticians believed that it is important to interpret statistical findings based on the clinically important effect size, but report this is difficult to operationalise. Reaching a consensus on the interpretation of a study is a social process involving disparate members of the research team along with editors and reviewers, as well as patients who likely have a role in the elicitation of minimally important differences.

Project description:BackgroundChanging population demographics and technology developments have resulted in growing interest in the potential of consumer-facing digital health. In the United Kingdom, a £37 million (US $49 million) national digital health program delivering assisted living lifestyles at scale (dallas) aimed to deploy such technologies at scale. However, little is known about how consumers value such digital health opportunities.ObjectiveThis study explored consumers' perspectives on the potential value of digital health technologies, particularly mobile health (mHealth), to promote well-being by examining their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for such health solutions.MethodsA contingent valuation study involving a UK-wide survey that asked participants to report open-ended absolute and marginal WTP or willingness-to-accept for the gain or loss of a hypothetical mHealth app, Healthy Connections.ResultsA UK-representative cohort (n=1697) and a dallas-like (representative of dallas intervention communities) cohort (n=305) were surveyed. Positive absolute and marginal WTP valuations of the app were identified across both cohorts (absolute WTP: UK-representative cohort £196 or US $258 and dallas-like cohort £162 or US $214; marginal WTP: UK-representative cohort £160 or US $211 and dallas-like cohort £151 or US $199). Among both cohorts, there was a high prevalence of zeros for both the absolute WTP (UK-representative cohort: 467/1697, 27.52% and dallas-like cohort: 95/305, 31.15%) and marginal WTP (UK-representative cohort: 487/1697, 28.70% and dallas-like cohort: 99/305, 32.5%). In both cohorts, better general health, previous amount spent on health apps (UK-representative cohort 0.64, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01; dallas-like cohort: 1.27, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.23), and age had a significant (P>.00) association with WTP (UK-representative cohort: -0.1, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; dallas-like cohort: -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01), with younger participants willing to pay more for the app. In the UK-representative cohort, as expected, higher WTP was positively associated with income up to £30,000 or US $39,642 (0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4) and increased spending on existing phone and internet services (0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74). The amount spent on existing health apps was shown to be a positive indicator of WTP across cohorts, although the effect was marginal (UK-representative cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.01; dallas-like cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.02).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that consumers value mHealth solutions that promote well-being, social connectivity, and health care control, but it is not universally embraced. For mHealth to achieve its potential, apps need to be tailored to user accessibility and health needs, and more understanding of what hinders frequent users of digital technologies and those with long-term conditions is required. This novel application of WTP in a digital health context demonstrates an economic argument for investing in upskilling the population to promote access and expedite uptake and utilization of such digital health and well-being apps.

Project description:BackgroundPatient satisfaction with in-person medical visits includes patient-clinician engagement. However, communication, empathy, and other relationship-centered care measures in virtual visits have not been adequately investigated.ObjectiveThis study aims to comprehensively consider patient experience, including relationship-centered care measures, to assess patient satisfaction during virtual visits.MethodsWe conducted a large survey study with open-ended questions to comprehensively assess patients' experiences with virtual visits in a diverse patient population. Adults with a virtual visit between June 21, 2017, and July 12, 2017, were invited to complete a survey of 21 Likert-scale items and textboxes for comments following their visit. Factor analysis of the survey items revealed three factors: experience with technology, patient-clinician engagement, and overall satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the associations among the three factors and patient demographics, clinician type, and prior relationship with the clinician. Using qualitative framework analysis, we identified recurrent themes in survey comments, quantitatively coded comments, and computed descriptive statistics of the coded comments.ResultsA total of 65.7% (426/648) of the patients completed the survey; 64.1% (273/426) of the respondents were women, and the average age was 46 (range 18-86) years. The sample was geographically diverse: 70.2% (299/426) from Ohio, 6.8% (29/426) from Florida, 4.2% (18/426) from Pennsylvania, and 18.7% (80/426) from other states. With regard to insurance coverage, 57.5% (245/426) were undetermined, 23.7% (101/426) had the hospital's employee health insurance, and 18.7% (80/426) had other private insurance. Types of virtual visits and clinicians varied. Overall, 58.4% (249/426) of patients had an on-demand visit, whereas 41.5% (177/426) had a scheduled visit. A total of 41.8% (178/426) of patients had a virtual visit with a family physician, 20.9% (89/426) with an advanced practice provider, and the rest had a visit with a specialist. Most patients (393/423, 92.9%) agreed that their virtual visit clinician was interested in them as a person, and their virtual visit made it easy to get the care they needed (383/421, 90.9%). A total of 81.9% (344/420) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their virtual visit was as good as an in-person visit by a clinician. Having a prior relationship with their virtual visit clinician was associated with less comfort and ease with virtual technology among patients (odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.98). In terms of technology, patients found the interface easy to use (392/423, 92.7%) and felt comfortable using it (401/423, 94.8%). Technical difficulties were associated with lower odds of overall satisfaction (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.76).ConclusionsPatient-clinician engagement in virtual visits was comparable with in-person visits. This study supports the value and acceptance of virtual visits. Evaluations of virtual visits should include assessments of technology and patient-clinician engagement, as both are likely to influence patient satisfaction.

Dataset Information

Symptoms and problems reported by patients with non-cancer diseases through open-ended questions in specialist palliative care: a national register-based study.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Symptoms and problems reported by patients with non-cancer diseases through open-ended questions in specialist palliative care: a national register-based study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets