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 , Sanne Rasmussen , Jens Søndergaard , Mette Terp Høybye , 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 , Sanne Rasmussen , Jens Søndergaard , Mette Terp Høybye , 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}
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.