Remote or in-person cancer support? Therapist and service user preferences

Q4 Medicine
Caroline Johnson, Ailish Gallagher, E. Rhodes, Susan Ursula Anne Smith
{"title":"Remote or in-person cancer support? Therapist and service user preferences","authors":"Caroline Johnson, Ailish Gallagher, E. Rhodes, Susan Ursula Anne Smith","doi":"10.12968/bjhc.2022.0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Remote service delivery became a key method of providing therapy for psychological oncology services during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. This study aimed to understand the experiences and preferences of both patients and therapists who undertook remote psychological therapy in a cancer support service, with a view to informing ongoing service provision. A total of 99 out of 152 invited patients completed an online mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) audit survey. All patient participants had accessed therapy with the psycho-oncology support team at Guy's Cancer Centre in London. Of the 12 therapists and four trainee therapists working in this service, 11 and two from each group (respectively) completed a corresponding survey about their experiences as therapists. For quantitative data, descriptive statistics were collated. Patients rated their experience of remote therapy as positive, reporting that they felt respected, understood and confident during therapy, and acknowledged the associated advantages of increased accessibility and infection control. Despite this, 87% of patients and 100% of therapists expressed a preference to access or deliver therapy in person, with patients identifying human connection and relationship building as key reasons for choosing in-person delivery. Therapists valued the relational aspects of in-person psychological support and reported that remote delivery had negatively affected the quality of therapy delivered. Understanding the needs and preferences of patients and therapists is important in informing ongoing psychological service delivery. The results highlight the importance of retaining provision for in-person service delivery and offering choice to patients in how they access psychological support, in line with personalised care recommendations made by the NHS Long Term Plan.","PeriodicalId":35342,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Health Care Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Health Care Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2022.0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Remote service delivery became a key method of providing therapy for psychological oncology services during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. This study aimed to understand the experiences and preferences of both patients and therapists who undertook remote psychological therapy in a cancer support service, with a view to informing ongoing service provision. A total of 99 out of 152 invited patients completed an online mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) audit survey. All patient participants had accessed therapy with the psycho-oncology support team at Guy's Cancer Centre in London. Of the 12 therapists and four trainee therapists working in this service, 11 and two from each group (respectively) completed a corresponding survey about their experiences as therapists. For quantitative data, descriptive statistics were collated. Patients rated their experience of remote therapy as positive, reporting that they felt respected, understood and confident during therapy, and acknowledged the associated advantages of increased accessibility and infection control. Despite this, 87% of patients and 100% of therapists expressed a preference to access or deliver therapy in person, with patients identifying human connection and relationship building as key reasons for choosing in-person delivery. Therapists valued the relational aspects of in-person psychological support and reported that remote delivery had negatively affected the quality of therapy delivered. Understanding the needs and preferences of patients and therapists is important in informing ongoing psychological service delivery. The results highlight the importance of retaining provision for in-person service delivery and offering choice to patients in how they access psychological support, in line with personalised care recommendations made by the NHS Long Term Plan.
远程还是面对面的癌症支持?治疗师和服务用户偏好
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间及之后,远程服务提供成为提供心理肿瘤服务治疗的关键方法。本研究旨在了解在癌症支持服务中接受远程心理治疗的患者和治疗师的经验和偏好,以期为正在进行的服务提供信息。在152名受邀患者中,共有99人完成了在线混合方法(定量和定性)审计调查。所有患者都接受了伦敦盖伊癌症中心的心理肿瘤学支持小组的治疗。在这项服务的12名治疗师及4名实习治疗师中,每组分别有11名及2名完成有关他们作为治疗师的经历的调查。定量资料采用描述性统计整理。患者对远程治疗的评价是积极的,报告说他们在治疗过程中感到受到尊重、理解和自信,并承认增加可及性和感染控制的相关优势。尽管如此,87%的患者和100%的治疗师表示更倾向于亲自接受或提供治疗,患者认为人际关系和建立关系是选择亲自提供治疗的关键原因。治疗师重视面对面心理支持的关系方面,并报告说远程交付对交付的治疗质量产生了负面影响。了解患者和治疗师的需求和偏好对于告知正在进行的心理服务提供是重要的。结果强调了保留提供面对面服务的重要性,并为患者提供他们如何获得心理支持的选择,符合NHS长期计划提出的个性化护理建议。
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: British Journal of Healthcare Management (BJHCM) is the independent monthly journal which is essential reading for all health service managers, policymakers, influencers and commentators. Launched in 1995, BJHCM mixes peer-reviewed management articles with interviews, analysis and comment to bring you a sharp, topical and valuable insight into what"s happening in and around the NHS. To reflect the way that the NHS is changing, the journal has recently received a major face-lift and several new features now appear alongside BJHCM"s excellent state-of-the-art review articles and celebrated columnists.
×
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