Search

With regard to doctors' interpersonal skills and availability, patients with breast, colorectal and esophageal cancer were less satisfied than patients with lung and head and neck cancer in the multivariate analyses. 0--- ht 1 I N i , number of patients included in the study; I N i invited, number of patients invited per country; Attrition rate, percentage of patients per country who declined to participate. Keywords: cancer; communication; cross-cultural; oncology; psycho-oncology; satisfaction with care EN cancer communication cross-cultural oncology psycho-oncology satisfaction with care 541 547 7 03/11/22 20220301 NES 220301 Key points Patient satisfaction with communication with professionals has been found to be an important endpoint in cancer treatment, especially in studies evaluating routine Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) monitoring. The greater SC among patients who receive treatment with palliative intention (chemo- and/or radiotherapy) suggests that more attention is given to communication with patients in non-curative treatment. [Extracted from the article]

A letter to the editor is presented which discusses the communication and relationship between cancer patients and professional.

Background The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group is currently developing computerized adaptive testing measures for the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ-C30) scales. The work presented here describes the development of an EORTC item bank for emotional functioning (EF), which is one of the core domains of the QLQ-C30. Methods According to the EORTC guidelines on module development, the development of the EF item bank comprised four phases, of which the phases I-III are reported in the present paper. Phase I involved defining the theoretical framework for the EF item bank and a literature search. Phase II included pre-defined item selection steps and a multi-stage expert review process. In phase III, feedback from cancer patients from different countries was obtained. Results On the basis of literature search in phase I, a list of 1750 items was generated. These were reviewed and further developed in phase II with a focus on relevance, redundancy, clarity, and difficulty. The development and selection steps led to a preliminary list of 41 items. In phase III, patient interviews ( N = 41; Austria, Denmark, Italy, and the UK) were conducted with the preliminary item list, resulting in some minor changes to item wording. The final list comprised 38 items. Discussion The phases I-III of the developmental process have resulted in an EF item list that was well accepted by patients in several countries. The items will be subjected to larger-scale field testing in order to establish their psychometric characteristics and their fit to an item response theory model. © 2013 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Informational needs among cancer patients are similar, but the degree of information disclosure in different cultural areas varies. In this paper, we present the results of a cross-cultural study on information received. Methods The EORTC information questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-INFO25, was administered during the treatment process. This questionnaire evaluates the information that patients report they have received. Cross-cultural differences in information have been evaluated using statistical tests such as Kruskall-Wallis and multivariate models with covariates to account for differences in clinical and demographic characteristics across areas. Results Four hundred and fifty-one patients from three cultural areas, North-Middle Europe, South Europe, and Taiwan, were included in the study. Significant differences among the three cultural areas appeared in eight QLQ-INFO25 dimensions: information about the disease; medical tests; places of care; written information; information on CD/tape/video; satisfaction; wish for more information; and information helpfulness. North-Middle Europe patients received more written information (mean = 67.2 (North) and 33.8 (South)) and South Europe patients received more information on different places of care (mean = 24.7 (North) and 35.0 (South)). Patients from North-Middle Europe and South Europe received more information than patients from Taiwan about the disease (mean = 57.9, 60.6, and 47.1, respectively) and medical tests (70.9, 70.4, and 54.5), showed more satisfaction (64.8, 70.2, and 35.0), and considered the information more helpful (71.9, 73.9, and 50.4). These results were confirmed when adjusting for age, education, and disease stage. Conclusion There are cross-cultural differences in information received. Some of these differences are based on the characteristics of each culture. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]