Differences in postoperative communication patterns among patients with limited English proficiency following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Abby L Chen, Chiyuan A Zhang, John Ogunkeye, Tianjia Jessie Ge, Nathan Nguyen, Eugene Shkolyar, Alan E Thong, John T Leppert, Harcharan S Gill, Jay B Shah, Eila Skinner, Kris B Prado
{"title":"Differences in postoperative communication patterns among patients with limited English proficiency following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer.","authors":"Abby L Chen, Chiyuan A Zhang, John Ogunkeye, Tianjia Jessie Ge, Nathan Nguyen, Eugene Shkolyar, Alan E Thong, John T Leppert, Harcharan S Gill, Jay B Shah, Eila Skinner, Kris B Prado","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.08.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Consistent urologic oncology follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) improves survival. However, there is scarce literature describing postoperative communication. We aimed to identify differences in postoperative communication patterns and healthcare utilization among English-speaking patients (ESPs) and patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) following RC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-institution, retrospective cohort study, examining patients who underwent RC for bladder cancer. We used propensity score matching to match 50 ESPs and 50 patients with LEP on age and sex. We abstracted patient demographics, postoperative communication and healthcare utilization within 90 days of surgery. We fit multivariable linear regression to investigate factors associated with postoperative communication frequency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postoperative communication was common, with 82% of patients placing ≥1 phone call/message. ESPs communicated more than patients with LEP (6.04 vs. 3.80 average calls/messages), though this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). ESPs were more likely to initiate the communication themselves and have postoperative communication result in reassurance from the surgical team (P = 0.03), while patients with LEP were more likely to have a family member communicate on their behalf (P < 0.001) and have postoperative communication result in outpatient evaluation/treatment (P = 0.01). Patients with a neobladder reconstruction placed an increased number of phone calls/messages. There were no differences in postoperative healthcare utilization between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Postoperative communication is frequent following RC. ESPs communicated nearly twice as often as patients with LEP, suggesting a clinically relevant difference in patient communication following radical cystectomy. Primary language spoken is not associated with differences in postoperative healthcare utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.08.027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Consistent urologic oncology follow-up after radical cystectomy (RC) improves survival. However, there is scarce literature describing postoperative communication. We aimed to identify differences in postoperative communication patterns and healthcare utilization among English-speaking patients (ESPs) and patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) following RC.

Methods: We conducted a single-institution, retrospective cohort study, examining patients who underwent RC for bladder cancer. We used propensity score matching to match 50 ESPs and 50 patients with LEP on age and sex. We abstracted patient demographics, postoperative communication and healthcare utilization within 90 days of surgery. We fit multivariable linear regression to investigate factors associated with postoperative communication frequency.

Results: Postoperative communication was common, with 82% of patients placing ≥1 phone call/message. ESPs communicated more than patients with LEP (6.04 vs. 3.80 average calls/messages), though this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.08). ESPs were more likely to initiate the communication themselves and have postoperative communication result in reassurance from the surgical team (P = 0.03), while patients with LEP were more likely to have a family member communicate on their behalf (P < 0.001) and have postoperative communication result in outpatient evaluation/treatment (P = 0.01). Patients with a neobladder reconstruction placed an increased number of phone calls/messages. There were no differences in postoperative healthcare utilization between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: Postoperative communication is frequent following RC. ESPs communicated nearly twice as often as patients with LEP, suggesting a clinically relevant difference in patient communication following radical cystectomy. Primary language spoken is not associated with differences in postoperative healthcare utilization.

膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术后英语水平有限患者的术后交流模式差异。
导读:根治性膀胱切除术(RC)后一致的泌尿外科肿瘤随访可提高生存率。然而,关于术后沟通的文献很少。我们的目的是确定英语患者(esp)和英语水平有限的患者(LEP)在RC术后沟通模式和医疗保健利用方面的差异。方法:我们进行了一项单机构、回顾性队列研究,对膀胱癌患者进行了RC治疗。我们采用倾向评分匹配法对50名esp和50名LEP患者的年龄和性别进行匹配。我们提取了90天内的患者人口统计、术后沟通和医疗保健利用情况。我们拟合多变量线性回归来研究与术后通信频率相关的因素。结果:术后沟通普遍,82%的患者拨打电话/留言≥1次。esp患者比LEP患者沟通更多(6.04 vs 3.80平均呼叫/信息),尽管这种差异无统计学意义(P = 0.08)。esp患者更倾向于自己主动沟通,术后沟通得到手术团队的保证(P = 0.03),而LEP患者更倾向于由家属代其沟通(P < 0.001),术后沟通得到门诊评估/治疗(P = 0.01)。接受新膀胱重建的患者打电话/发短信的次数增加了。两组患者术后医疗保健利用无差异。结论:术后交流频繁。esp患者的交流频率几乎是LEP患者的两倍,提示根治性膀胱切除术后患者交流的临床相关差异。使用的主要语言与术后医疗保健利用的差异无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
7.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信