Search

Introduction: International and national guidelines highlight the need for general practitioner involvement during and after active cancer treatment and throughout long-term follow-up care. This paper aimed to evaluate patients' acceptance of radiation oncology shared follow-up care using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at two cancer care centres in the Illawarra Shoalhaven region of Australia. A sample of patients scheduled for a radiation oncology follow-up consultation in 2021 were sent a 32-point self-complete paper-based survey. Data were analysed using descriptive, parametric and non-parametric statistical analysis. This paper followed the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). Results: Of the 414 surveys returned (45% response rate), the acceptance for radiation oncology shared cancer follow-up care was high (80%). Patients treated with only radiotherapy were 1.7 times more likely to accept shared follow-up care than those treated with multiple modalities. Patients who preferred follow-up care for fewer than three years were 7.5 times more likely to accept shared care than those who preferred follow-up care for five years. Patients who travelled more than 20 minutes to their radiation oncologist or to the rural cancer centre were slightly more likely to accept shared care than those who travelled less than twenty minutes to the regional cancer centre. A high understanding of shared care (Intervention Coherence) and a positive feeling towards shared care (Affective Attitude) were significant predictive factors in accepting shared radiation oncology follow-up care. Conclusion: Health services need to ensure patient preferences are considered to provide patient-centred cancer follow-up care. Shared cancer follow-up care implementation should start with patients who prefer a shorter follow-up period and understand the benefits of shared care. However, patients' involvement needs to be considered alongside other clinical risk profiles and organisational factors. Future qualitative research using the TFA constructs is warranted to inform clinical practice change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Australian government strategies and frameworks have been developed in recent years to encourage the integration and coordination of primary care delivery; including patient-centred approaches to clinical and preventative care, and health promotion. This study aims to explore patient experiences of information-sharing and patient-centred care across various primary care clinical settings, with a particular focus on clinical encounters with GPs, naturopaths, osteopaths and acupuncturists. Methods: Data about healthcare utilisation and experiences from a 63-item cross-sectional survey obtained from a nationally representative sample of Australian adults aged ≥ 18 years were analysed. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were used to explore differences in the experiences of knowledge and information sharing during GP consultations among those who also consulted with a naturopath, osteopath or acupuncturist, compared those who had not. Logistic regression was used to investigate correlations between participants perceptions about GP consultation outcomes, and the GP's information-sharing behaviour or perceived experience of patient-centredness. Results: Across 2354 participants, verbal explanation (76.3%) and/or individualised handouts (16.8%) were the most common type of information shared in GP consultations. Individuals who consulted with a GP and a naturopath, an osteopath, or an acupuncturist reported a lower rate of receiving a verbal explanation from their GP but higher rate of receiving other types of information sources including handouts. Over one quarter of study participants who visited a GP did not discuss any of their health information with their GP. Information sharing was lower for individuals who also visited a naturopath, osteopath or acupuncturist. Participants scored their consultations with a GP as patient-centred, but these scores were lower among participants who also consulted with at least one other primary care practitioner type included in the study. Conclusions: Public health and health services researchers, policymakers and leaders of primary care professions have a role and responsibility to ensure practitioners are confident and competent in sharing health information with their patients that considers their health literacy needs, and the importance of patient-centred care. Research focussed on a more in-depth understanding of the differences and relationships observed across the primary care landscape in this study is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]