开发结构化问卷,以评估全科医生对癌症患者的个人需求。定性研究

Frederik Rosenbæk , Sanne Rasmussen , Jens Søndergaard , Mette Terp Høybye , Dorte Gilså Hansen
{"title":"开发结构化问卷,以评估全科医生对癌症患者的个人需求。定性研究","authors":"Frederik Rosenbæk ,&nbsp;Sanne Rasmussen ,&nbsp;Jens Søndergaard ,&nbsp;Mette Terp Høybye ,&nbsp;Dorte Gilså Hansen","doi":"10.1016/j.ymecc.2023.100004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Present studies report a vast number of unmet rehabilitation needs for cancer patients and a lack of professional focus irrespective of the type of cancer, prognosis, treatment, and clinical setting. Therefore, interventions targeting individual needs assessments using patient-reported outcome measures are recommended.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This paper explores the perceived value of a primarily author-developed questionnaire that assesses the needs experienced by cancer patients and general practitioners in their interaction in general practice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted nine semi-structured qualitative interviews with nine general practitioners and nine cancer patients to evaluate their assessment of our 33-item questionnaire.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The general practitioners and patients demonstrate similarities but differences in their perception of the questionnaire’s value. The general practitioners were anxious about the questionnaire's comprehensiveness, which could indicate to the patients that they should solve all their problems related to the aftermaths of their illness. This is why the alignment of expectations was essential to the general practitioners. The comprehensiveness was, however, also regarded as instructive to the general practitioners, given that they would get more knowledge about the patient’s conditions and problems. The patients saw the questionnaire as a helpful tool that could aid them in their illness, by targeting highly relevant areas that were not always addressed by their general practitioner. The comprehensiveness was thus regarded as helpful. They hoped the general practitioners would allocate enough time to go through all their needs, provided the general practitioners received the filled-in questionnaire before the consultations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The GPs and patients favored the comprehensiveness of an author-developed structured questionnaire. Both groups agreed that it addressed all issues relevant to the patients during their illness. Although the GPs stressed that expectations should be aligned before introducing the questionnaire to the patients at consultations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100896,"journal":{"name":"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949877523000047/pdfft?md5=23a41eef7efedc82a23bf36d2648b8dd&pid=1-s2.0-S2949877523000047-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a structured questionnaire to assess cancer patients’ individual needs in general practice. A qualitative study\",\"authors\":\"Frederik Rosenbæk ,&nbsp;Sanne Rasmussen ,&nbsp;Jens Søndergaard ,&nbsp;Mette Terp Høybye ,&nbsp;Dorte Gilså Hansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ymecc.2023.100004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Present studies report a vast number of unmet rehabilitation needs for cancer patients and a lack of professional focus irrespective of the type of cancer, prognosis, treatment, and clinical setting. Therefore, interventions targeting individual needs assessments using patient-reported outcome measures are recommended.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This paper explores the perceived value of a primarily author-developed questionnaire that assesses the needs experienced by cancer patients and general practitioners in their interaction in general practice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted nine semi-structured qualitative interviews with nine general practitioners and nine cancer patients to evaluate their assessment of our 33-item questionnaire.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The general practitioners and patients demonstrate similarities but differences in their perception of the questionnaire’s value. The general practitioners were anxious about the questionnaire's comprehensiveness, which could indicate to the patients that they should solve all their problems related to the aftermaths of their illness. This is why the alignment of expectations was essential to the general practitioners. The comprehensiveness was, however, also regarded as instructive to the general practitioners, given that they would get more knowledge about the patient’s conditions and problems. The patients saw the questionnaire as a helpful tool that could aid them in their illness, by targeting highly relevant areas that were not always addressed by their general practitioner. The comprehensiveness was thus regarded as helpful. They hoped the general practitioners would allocate enough time to go through all their needs, provided the general practitioners received the filled-in questionnaire before the consultations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The GPs and patients favored the comprehensiveness of an author-developed structured questionnaire. Both groups agreed that it addressed all issues relevant to the patients during their illness. Although the GPs stressed that expectations should be aligned before introducing the questionnaire to the patients at consultations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949877523000047/pdfft?md5=23a41eef7efedc82a23bf36d2648b8dd&pid=1-s2.0-S2949877523000047-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949877523000047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Measurement and Evaluations in Cancer Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949877523000047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景目前的研究报告显示,癌症患者存在大量未得到满足的康复需求,而且无论癌症类型、预后、治疗方法和临床环境如何,都缺乏专业关注。因此,建议使用患者报告的结果测量方法,针对个人需求评估进行干预。本文探讨了主要由作者开发的问卷的感知价值,该问卷用于评估癌症患者和全科医生在全科诊疗互动过程中体验到的需求。全科医生对问卷的全面性感到焦虑,因为这可能会向患者表明,他们应该解决与疾病后遗症有关的所有问题。因此,对全科医生来说,调整期望值至关重要。然而,全面性也被认为对普通医生有指导意义,因为他们可以获得更多关于病人病情和问题的知识。病人则认为问卷是一种有用的工具,可以帮助他们治疗疾病,因为它针对的是与疾病高度相关的领域,而这些领域并不总是由他们的全科医生来处理。因此,他们认为问卷的全面性很有帮助。他们希望全科医生能够分配足够的时间来了解他们的所有需求,前提是全科医生在会诊前收到填写完整的问卷。两组人都认为问卷涉及了患者在患病期间的所有相关问题。尽管全科医生强调,在会诊时向患者介绍问卷前应先统一预期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of a structured questionnaire to assess cancer patients’ individual needs in general practice. A qualitative study

Background

Present studies report a vast number of unmet rehabilitation needs for cancer patients and a lack of professional focus irrespective of the type of cancer, prognosis, treatment, and clinical setting. Therefore, interventions targeting individual needs assessments using patient-reported outcome measures are recommended.

Aim

This paper explores the perceived value of a primarily author-developed questionnaire that assesses the needs experienced by cancer patients and general practitioners in their interaction in general practice.

Methods

We conducted nine semi-structured qualitative interviews with nine general practitioners and nine cancer patients to evaluate their assessment of our 33-item questionnaire.

Results

The general practitioners and patients demonstrate similarities but differences in their perception of the questionnaire’s value. The general practitioners were anxious about the questionnaire's comprehensiveness, which could indicate to the patients that they should solve all their problems related to the aftermaths of their illness. This is why the alignment of expectations was essential to the general practitioners. The comprehensiveness was, however, also regarded as instructive to the general practitioners, given that they would get more knowledge about the patient’s conditions and problems. The patients saw the questionnaire as a helpful tool that could aid them in their illness, by targeting highly relevant areas that were not always addressed by their general practitioner. The comprehensiveness was thus regarded as helpful. They hoped the general practitioners would allocate enough time to go through all their needs, provided the general practitioners received the filled-in questionnaire before the consultations.

Conclusion

The GPs and patients favored the comprehensiveness of an author-developed structured questionnaire. Both groups agreed that it addressed all issues relevant to the patients during their illness. Although the GPs stressed that expectations should be aligned before introducing the questionnaire to the patients at consultations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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