Dataset Information

Patient's thoughts and expectations about centres of expertise for PKU.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the Netherlands (NL) the government assigned 2 hospitals as centres of expertise (CE) for Phenylketonuria (PKU), while in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany no centres are assigned specifically as PKU CE's.

Methods

To identify expectations of patients/caregivers with PKU of CEs, a web-based survey was distributed through the national Phenylketonuria societies of Germany, NL and UK.

Results

In total, 105 responded (43 patients, 56 parents, 4 grandparents, 2 other) of whom 59 were from NL, 33 from UK and 13 from Germany. All participants (n = 105) agreed that patients and/or practitioners would benefit from CEs. The frequency patients would want to visit a CE, when not treated in a CE (n = 83) varied: every hospital visit (24%, n = 20), annual or bi-annual (45%, n = 37), at defined patient ages (6%, n = 5), one visit only (22%, n = 18), or never (4%, n = 3). Distance was reported as a major barrier (42%, n = 35). 78% (n = 65) expected CE physicians and dieticians to have a higher level of knowledge than in non-CE centres. For participants already treated in a CE (n = 68), 66% requested a more extensive annual or bi-annual review. In general, psychology review and neuropsychologist assessment were identified as necessary by approximately half of the 105 participants. In addition, 66% (n = 68) expected a strong collaboration with patient associations.

Conclusion

In this small study, most participants expected that assigning CEs will change the structure of and delivery of Phenylketonuria care.

SUBMITTER: van Wegberg AMJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7789756 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient's thoughts and expectations about centres of expertise for PKU.

van Wegberg A M J AMJ MacDonald A A Abeln D D Hagedorn T S TS Lange E E Trefz F F van Vliet D D van Spronsen F J FJ

Orphanet journal of rare diseases 20210106 1

<h4>Background</h4>In the Netherlands (NL) the government assigned 2 hospitals as centres of expertise (CE) for Phenylketonuria (PKU), while in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany no centres are assigned specifically as PKU CE's.<h4>Methods</h4>To identify expectations of patients/caregivers with PKU of CEs, a web-based survey was distributed through the national Phenylketonuria societies of Germany, NL and UK.<h4>Results</h4>In total, 105 responded (43 patients, 56 parents, 4 grandparents, 2 ot ...[more]

PMID: 33407655

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare patient perceptions of radiotherapy (RT) before and after treatment to better inform future patients and providers.MethodsSeventy-eight consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neo- or adjuvant chemoradiation, surgical resection, and adjuvant chemotherapy from 2009 to 2018 and who were without recurrence were included. Patients were surveyed ≥6 months after ileostomy reversal or ≥3 months after adjuvant chemotherapy. The survey assessed patients' baseline knowledge and fears of RT, how their short- and long-term side effects compared with initial expectations, and how their experiences compared for each modality (RT, surgery, and chemotherapy).ResultsForty patient-responses were received. Before treatment, 70% of patients indicated little to no knowledge of RT, though 43% reported hearing frightening stories about RT. The most commonly top-ranked fears included organ damage (26%), skin burns (14%), and inability to carry out normal daily activities (10%). Eighty percent reported short-term effects of RT to be less than or as expected, with urinary changes (93%), abdominal discomfort (90%), and anxiety (88%) most commonly rated as less than or as expected. 85% reported long-term effects to be less than or as expected, with pain (95%), changes to the appearance of the treated area (85%), and dissatisfaction with body image (80%) most commonly rated as less than or as expected. Surgery was most commonly rated as the most difficult treatment (50%) and most responsible for long-term effects (55%). RT was least commonly rated as the most difficult treatment (13%), and chemotherapy was least commonly rated as most responsible for long-term effects (13%).ConclusionsThe majority of patients indicated short- and long-term side effects of RT for rectal cancer to be better than initial expectations. In the context of trimodality therapy, patients reported RT to be the least difficult of the treatments.

Project description:PurposeTo respond to increased public and programmatic demand to address underenrollment of clinical translational research studies, the authors examined participant recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) sites and make recommendations for performance metrics and accountability.MethodThe CTSA Recruitment and Retention taskforce in 2010 invited representatives at 46 CTSAs to complete an online 48-question survey querying accrual and recruitment outcomes, practices, evaluation methods, policies, and perceived gaps in related knowledge/practice. Descriptive statistical and thematic analyses were conducted.ResultsForty-six respondents representing 44 CTSAs completed the survey. Recruitment conducted by study teams was the most common practice reported (78%-91%, by study type); 39% reported their institution offered recruitment services to investigators. Respondents valued study feasibility assessment as a successful practice (39%); desired additional resources included feasibility assessments (49%) and participant registries (44%). None reported their institution systematically required justification of feasibility; some indicated relevant information was considered prior to institutional review board (IRB) review (30%) or contract approval (22%). All respondents' IRBs tracked study progress, but only 10% of respondents could report outcome data for timely accrual. Few reported written policies addressing poor accrual or provided data to support recruitment practice effectiveness.ConclusionsMany CTSAs lack the necessary frame work to support study accrual. Recom men dations to enhance accrual include articulating institutional expectations and policy for routine recruitment plan ning; providing recruitment expertise to inform feasibility assessment and recruit ment planning; and developing interdepartmental coordination and integrated informatics infrastructure to drive the conduct, evaluation, and improvement of recruitment practices.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient-centredness of care during wait time before surgery can be improved. In this study we aimed to assess (1) patients' experiences with and preferences regarding wait time before surgery; (2) the impact of wait time on quality of life (QoL) and (3) which factors influence patients' wait time experience.Design, setting, participantsWe performed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study among women with gynaecological cancer in two tertiary hospitals. We conducted semistructured interviews and identified aspects of QoL and factors that influenced wait time acceptability through thematic analysis. We developed a questionnaire from this thematic analysis which was completed by 97 women. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.ResultsAverage ideal wait time was 3.5 weeks (±1.7 weeks), minimum and maximum acceptable wait times were 2.2 and 5.6 weeks. Many patients scored above the threshold of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for anxiety (48%) or depression (34%), had sleeping problems (56%) or experienced pain (54%). A number of factors were more common in patients who indicated that their wait time had been too long: low education level (OR 7.4, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.0, p=0.007), time to surgery >4 weeks (OR 7.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.4, p=0.002) and experienced sleep disturbance (OR 3.27, 95% CI 0.0 to 3.1, p=0.05). If patients expectation of wait time was >4 weeks (OR 0.20, 95% CI -4.0 to -0.5 p=0008) or if patients experienced pain (OR 0.26, 95% CI -3.6 to -0.3, p=0.03), they less frequently indicated that wait time had been too long.ConclusionTo improve patient-centredness of care, healthcare providers should aim to reduce wait time to 3-4 weeks and ensure that patients are well informed about the length of wait time and are aware of high levels of anxiety, depression and pain during this time. Future studies should evaluate what interventions can improve QoL during wait time.

Dataset Information

Patient's thoughts and expectations about centres of expertise for PKU.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Patient's thoughts and expectations about centres of expertise for PKU.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets