Information Behaviour and Knowledge of Patients Before Radical Prostatectomy.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancers Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI:10.3390/cancers17020300
Christopher Hirtsiefer, Anna Vogelgesang, Fabian Falkenbach, Mona Kafka, Annemarie Uhlig, Tim Nestler, Cem Aksoy, Iva Simunovic, Johannes Huber, Isabel Heidegger, Markus Graefen, Marianne Leitsmann, Christian Thomas, Martin Baunacke
{"title":"Information Behaviour and Knowledge of Patients Before Radical Prostatectomy.","authors":"Christopher Hirtsiefer, Anna Vogelgesang, Fabian Falkenbach, Mona Kafka, Annemarie Uhlig, Tim Nestler, Cem Aksoy, Iva Simunovic, Johannes Huber, Isabel Heidegger, Markus Graefen, Marianne Leitsmann, Christian Thomas, Martin Baunacke","doi":"10.3390/cancers17020300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>Robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy (RARP and ORP) are established procedures for localized prostate cancer, with comparable oncological and functional outcomes. Little is known about patients' knowledge of both procedures. This study aimed to examine comparatively the informational behaviour and knowledge of patients undergoing ORP vs. RARP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, multicentre study included patients who underwent RARP or ORP prior to presurgery counselling. The questionnaires gathered information about patients' information-seeking behaviours and their assessment of outcomes for RARP vs. ORP. We investigated risk factors for the misperception of procedure outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 508 patients were included (307 RARP (60%); 201 ORP (40%)). The most common sources of information were outpatient urologists (84%), urologic departments (67%) and the internet (57%). Compared with ORP, RARP patients more often received the same amount of information about both procedures (60% vs. 40%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Compared with ORP, RARP patients wrongfully considered their procedure to be superior in terms of oncological and functional outcomes. In the multivariable analysis, age > 66 years (OR 2.1, <i>p</i> = 0.02), no high school degree (OR 1.9, <i>p</i> = 0.04), unbalanced information search (OR 2.4, <i>p</i> = 0.02), RARP patient status (OR 8.9, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and treatment at a centre offering only one procedure (OR 3.5, <i>p</i> < 0.001) were independent predictors of misperception.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RARP patients wrongfully considered their intervention to be oncologically and functionally more beneficial than ORP patients perceived it to be. This may be due to unbalanced sources of information. Urologists and surgical centres must address this misperception to enable patients to make informed decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"17 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11764233/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17020300","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: Robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy (RARP and ORP) are established procedures for localized prostate cancer, with comparable oncological and functional outcomes. Little is known about patients' knowledge of both procedures. This study aimed to examine comparatively the informational behaviour and knowledge of patients undergoing ORP vs. RARP.

Methods: This prospective, multicentre study included patients who underwent RARP or ORP prior to presurgery counselling. The questionnaires gathered information about patients' information-seeking behaviours and their assessment of outcomes for RARP vs. ORP. We investigated risk factors for the misperception of procedure outcomes.

Results: A total of 508 patients were included (307 RARP (60%); 201 ORP (40%)). The most common sources of information were outpatient urologists (84%), urologic departments (67%) and the internet (57%). Compared with ORP, RARP patients more often received the same amount of information about both procedures (60% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Compared with ORP, RARP patients wrongfully considered their procedure to be superior in terms of oncological and functional outcomes. In the multivariable analysis, age > 66 years (OR 2.1, p = 0.02), no high school degree (OR 1.9, p = 0.04), unbalanced information search (OR 2.4, p = 0.02), RARP patient status (OR 8.9, p < 0.001), and treatment at a centre offering only one procedure (OR 3.5, p < 0.001) were independent predictors of misperception.

Conclusions: RARP patients wrongfully considered their intervention to be oncologically and functionally more beneficial than ORP patients perceived it to be. This may be due to unbalanced sources of information. Urologists and surgical centres must address this misperception to enable patients to make informed decisions.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancers
Cancers Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.60%
发文量
5371
审稿时长
18.07 days
期刊介绍: Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信