Search

Background: Approximately one-third of patient appointments in Danish health care result in failures, leading to patient risk and sizable resource waste. Existing interventions to alleviate no-shows often target the patients. The underlying reason behind these interventions is a view that attendance or nonattendance is solely the patient’s problem. However, these interventions often prove to be ineffective and can perpetuate social biases and health inequalities, leaving behind patients who are more vulnerable or disadvantaged (in terms of social, economical, and linguistic factors, etc). A more holistic understanding of no-shows is needed to optimize processes, reduce waste, and support patients who are vulnerable. Objective: This study aims to gain a deep and more comprehensive understanding of the causes, mechanisms, and recurring patterns and elements contributing to nonattendance at Danish hospitals in the Region of Southern Denmark. It emphasizes the patient perspective and analyzes the relational and organizational processes surrounding no-shows in health care. In addition, the study aims to identify effective communicative strategies and organizational processes that can support the development and implementation of successful interventions. Methods: The study uses mixed quantitative-qualitative methods, encompassing 4 analytical projects focusing on nonattendance patterns, patient knowledge and behavior, the management of hospital appointments, and in situ communication. To address the complexity of no-shows in health care, the study incorporates various data sources. The quantitative data sources include the electronic patient records, Danish central registries, Danish National Patient Registry, and Register of Medicinal Product Statistics. Baseline characteristics of patients at different levels are compared using chi-square tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. The qualitative studies involve observational data, individual semistructured interviews wit

We developed the Navigate intervention to improve survival among vulnerable lung cancer patients. In this intervention-only study, we examined feasibility in terms of recruitment, retention, attendance, adherence, and acceptability to specify adjustments to study procedures and intervention components prior to a randomized trial. The Navigate intervention includes nurse navigation, patient-reported outcomes, and physical exercise. Patients ≥ 18 years old, diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer at any stage, with performance status ≤ 2, eligible for cancer treatment and vulnerable according to a screening instrument were included. The recruitment goal of eligible patients was 40% while the retention goal was 85%. The predefined cut-offs for sufficient attendance and adherence were ≥ 75%. Acceptability was evaluated by semi-structured interviews with participants, nurse navigators, and physiotherapists. Seventeen (56%) out of 30 screened patients were considered vulnerable and eligible for the study, 14 (82%) accepted participation, and 3 (21%) were subsequently excluded due to ineligibility, leaving 11 patients. Four patients dropped out (36%) and four patients died (36%) during follow-up and 3 (27%) were retained. All 11 patients participated in nurse sessions (mean 16, range 1–36) with 88% attendance and dialogue tools being applied in 68% of sessions. Ninety-one percent of patients responded to PROs (mean of 9 PROs, range 1–24) with 76% of the PRO questionnaires used (attendance) and 100% adherence (completion of all questions in PRO questionnaires), and 55% participated in exercise sessions with 58% attendance and 85% adherence. We identified important barriers primarily related to transportation, but overall acceptability was high. The Navigate intervention was feasible with high participation, acceptability and satisfactory adherence. Retention and exercise attendance were low, which resulted in adjustments., We developed the Navigate intervention to improve survival among vulnerable lung cancer patients. In this intervention-only study, we examined feasibility in terms of recruitment, retention, attendance, adherence, and acceptability to specify adjustments to study procedures and intervention components prior to a randomized trial. The Navigate intervention includes nurse navigation, patient-reported outcomes, and physical exercise. Patients ≥ 18 years old, diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer at any stage, with performance status ≤ 2, eligible for cancer treatment and vulnerable according to a screening instrument were included. The recruitment goal of eligible patients was 40% while the retention goal was 85%. The predefined cut-offs for sufficient attendance and adherence were ≥ 75%. Acceptability was evaluated by semi-structured interviews with participants, nurse navigators, and physiotherapists. Seventeen (56%) out of 30 screened patients were considered vulnerable and eligible for the study, 14 (82%) accepted participation, and 3 (21%) were subsequently excluded due to ineligibility, leaving 11 patients. Four patients dropped out (36%) and four patients died (36%) during follow-up and 3 (27%) were retained. All 11 patients participated in nurse sessions (mean 16, range 1–36) with 88% attendance and dialogue tools being applied in 68% of sessions. Ninety-one percent of patients responded to PROs (mean of 9 PROs, range 1–24) with 76% of the PRO questionnaires used (attendance) and 100% adherence (completion of all questions in PRO questionnaires), and 55% participated in exercise sessions with 58% attendance and 85% adherence. We identified important barriers primarily related to transportation, but overall acceptability was high. The Navigate intervention was feasible with high participation, acceptability and satisfactory adherence. Retention and exercise attendance were low, which resulted in adjustments. Trial registration: The feasibility study was i

Introduction and aim Low socioeconomic position (SEP) has been shown to be strongly associated with impaired lung cancer survival. Barriers related to receiving recommended treatment among patients with lung cancer with low SEP may include adverse health behaviour and limited physical and psychosocial resources influencing the ability to react on high-risk symptoms and to navigate the healthcare system. To address the underlying factors that drive both decisions of treatment, adherence to treatment and follow-up in vulnerable patients with lung cancer, we developed the Navigate intervention. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate the effect of the intervention on survival (primary outcome), lung cancer treatment adherence, health-related quality of life and other psychosocial outcomes as well as health costs and process evaluation (secondary outcomes) in a study population of vulnerable patients with lung cancer. Methods and analysis This two-armed multicentre randomised trial will recruit patients from five lung cancer clinics in Denmark identified as vulnerable according to a screening instrument with nine clinical and patient-reported vulnerability criteria developed for the study. We will enrol 518 vulnerable patients >18 years old diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer at all stages with a performance status <2. Participants will be randomly allocated to either standard treatment and intervention or standard treatment alone. The Navigate intervention is based on principles from motivational interviewing and includes three components of nurse navigation, systematic monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physical exercise in a person-centred delivery model. Data will be collected at baseline and 3, 6, 12 months after randomisation using questionnaires, clinical data and physical function tests. Ethics and dissemination Ethics Committee, Region Zealand (SJ-884/EMN-2020-37380) and the Data Protection Agency in Region Z

Background: An association between sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and occurrence of head and neck cancer (HNC) is proposed.Aims/objectives: We aimed to determine the association between selected STDs (syphilis, gonorrhoea, HIV) and HNC.Materials and methods: Patients diagnosed with HNC in Denmark between 1978 and 2014 identified through the Danish Cancer Registry were included. Patients were age- and sex-matched in a 1:10 ratio with general population controls. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox regression model to assess the correlation between STD and HNC.Results: A total of 39,405 HNC patients (63% men; 63.0 years at HNC diagnosis) and 393,238 controls were included. STD in HNC patients was 0.27%, vs. 0.11% in controls. Patients with cancer of the upper airways had a significantly higher prevalence of an STD prior to the HNC compared to controls. Most HNC patients with a prior STD (64.1%) developed the HNC within five years after the STD diagnosis.Conclusions: Although the studied STDs are rare, patients with cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract more commonly had a previous diagnosis of STD compared to controls. The study promotes the hypothesis that a causal link exists between STD and HNC.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to examine the feasibility of a nationwide collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a lung cancer population as well as in various sub-populations, and to describe the characteristics of responders compared to non-responders.MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Denmark are registered in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). The 7,295 patients registered in DLCR from 1 October 2013 until 30 September 2015 who had received treatment were eligible. Using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires, we employed two different methods of delivery, resulting in two different project parts. In project part 1, the baseline questionnaire was handed out at the hospital departments before treatment. The following questionnaires were sent out as paper versions three times within one year. In project part 2, all questionnaires were electronic versions delivered in association with planned hospital visits.RESULTS: Of the 7,295 lung cancer patients 4,229 (58%) completed at least one questionnaire, and 2,459 completed two or more. Only 562 baseline questionnaires were returned before treatment (7.7%), whereas 43.4%-57.4% of the potential responders completed the following questionnaires. The best response rates were achieved among patients treated with surgery and among patients who discussed their questionnaires with health care personnel. When comparing patient characteristics, responders had a significantly better health and a higher socioeconomic position than non-responders.CONCLUSION: A decentralised model used for delivering the initial questionnaire to the patients was insufficient. It is our estimation that sending out electronic versions of the baseline questionnaires, as was done with the following questionnaires, would result in a significantly better patient coverage. Despite the severe morbidity and high mortalit