患者对脑转移瘤治疗后虚拟与面对面护理的看法

IF 2.7 Q3 ONCOLOGY

Advances in Radiation Oncology Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.adro.2025.101907

Bardia Amanirad BSc , Chinmay M. Potdar MSc , Matthew Ramotar H.BSc, Anna T. Santiago MSc, Janet Papadakos PhD, Med , David B. Shultz MD, PhD

{"title":"患者对脑转移瘤治疗后虚拟与面对面护理的看法","authors":"Bardia Amanirad BSc , Chinmay M. Potdar MSc , Matthew Ramotar H.BSc, Anna T. Santiago MSc, Janet Papadakos PhD, Med , David B. Shultz MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aims to explore perspectives of patients with brain metastasis on posttreatment care, comparing virtual and in-person visits, and identifying factors shaping those views.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>A cross-sectional survey assessed patient perspectives on posttreatment care. We offered the survey to English-fluent patients with internet access who received posttreatment care at a Brain Metastases Clinic (n = =140). One hundred twenty-three participants returned the survey, and 112 completed at least 80% of it, a criterion for inclusion. Patients received posttreatment follow-up care either virtually, in-person, or both. Nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and Chi-Square tests, with a modified linear regression model evaluating factors related to visit satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that virtual care would be rated higher based on doctor punctuality, but lower on personal connection, communication, and overall satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants who experienced both visit types rated in-person visits higher for personal connection (χ²(df = 1) = 19.703, <em>P</em> < .0001), ability to demonstrate physical problems (χ²(df = 1) = 18.778, <em>P</em> < .0001), and confidence in addressing health concerns (χ²(df = 1) = 16.941, <em>P</em> < .0001). Overall satisfaction did not significantly differ between visit types (U = 3607.5, z = 1.613, <em>P</em> = .107). Doctor punctuality (<em>t</em> = –2.328, SE = 0.32, <em>P</em> = .025) and communication effectiveness (<em>t</em> = –3.166, SE = 0.608, <em>P</em> = .003) were significant correlates to visit satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Similar levels of satisfaction with virtual and in-person visits suggest that virtual care is a viable alternative to in-person visits. Higher ratings of personal connection felt with the physician, ability to demonstrate physical problems, and having health concerns properly addressed, within in-person visits, underscore their importance within a health care setting. Additionally, a doctor punctuality and communication skills are the most significant factors affecting visit satisfaction in this population, highlighting key areas for improvement in health care delivery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 12","pages":"Article 101907"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Perspectives on Virtual vs In-Person Posttreatment Care for Brain Metastases\",\"authors\":\"Bardia Amanirad BSc , Chinmay M. Potdar MSc , Matthew Ramotar H.BSc, Anna T. Santiago MSc, Janet Papadakos PhD, Med , David B. Shultz MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101907\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This study aims to explore perspectives of patients with brain metastasis on posttreatment care, comparing virtual and in-person visits, and identifying factors shaping those views.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>A cross-sectional survey assessed patient perspectives on posttreatment care. We offered the survey to English-fluent patients with internet access who received posttreatment care at a Brain Metastases Clinic (n = =140). One hundred twenty-three participants returned the survey, and 112 completed at least 80% of it, a criterion for inclusion. Patients received posttreatment follow-up care either virtually, in-person, or both. Nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and Chi-Square tests, with a modified linear regression model evaluating factors related to visit satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that virtual care would be rated higher based on doctor punctuality, but lower on personal connection, communication, and overall satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Participants who experienced both visit types rated in-person visits higher for personal connection (χ²(df = 1) = 19.703, <em>P</em> < .0001), ability to demonstrate physical problems (χ²(df = 1) = 18.778, <em>P</em> < .0001), and confidence in addressing health concerns (χ²(df = 1) = 16.941, <em>P</em> < .0001). Overall satisfaction did not significantly differ between visit types (U = 3607.5, z = 1.613, <em>P</em> = .107). Doctor punctuality (<em>t</em> = –2.328, SE = 0.32, <em>P</em> = .025) and communication effectiveness (<em>t</em> = –3.166, SE = 0.608, <em>P</em> = .003) were significant correlates to visit satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Similar levels of satisfaction with virtual and in-person visits suggest that virtual care is a viable alternative to in-person visits. Higher ratings of personal connection felt with the physician, ability to demonstrate physical problems, and having health concerns properly addressed, within in-person visits, underscore their importance within a health care setting. Additionally, a doctor punctuality and communication skills are the most significant factors affecting visit satisfaction in this population, highlighting key areas for improvement in health care delivery.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\"10 12\",\"pages\":\"Article 101907\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109425001940\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109425001940","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究旨在探讨脑转移患者对治疗后护理的看法，比较虚拟访视和现场访视，并找出影响这些看法的因素。方法与材料横断面调查评估患者对治疗后护理的看法。我们对在脑转移诊所接受治疗后护理的英语流利且能上网的患者进行了调查（n = =140）。123名参与者返回了调查，其中112人完成了至少80%的内容，这是纳入标准。患者接受治疗后的随访护理，或虚拟，或面对面，或两者兼而有之。采用Mann-Whitney U检验和卡方检验对非参数数据进行分析，并采用改进的线性回归模型评价访问满意度相关因素。我们的假设是，根据医生的准时性，虚拟医疗的评分会更高，但在个人联系、沟通和总体满意度方面的评分会更低。结果经历过两种访问类型的参与者在人际关系（χ²(df = 1) = 19.703, P < .0001）、展示身体问题的能力（χ²(df = 1) = 18.778, P < .0001）和解决健康问题的信心（χ²(df = 1) = 16.941, P < .0001）方面对亲自访问的评价较高。总体满意度在不同访视类型间无显著差异（U = 3607.5, z = 1.613, P = 0.107）。医生准时性（t = -2.328, SE = 0.32, P = 0.025）和沟通有效性（t = -3.166, SE = 0.608, P = 0.003）与就诊满意度显著相关。结论虚拟和面对面就诊的满意度相近，表明虚拟护理是面对面就诊的可行替代方案。在亲自就诊中，与医生的个人联系、展示身体问题的能力以及健康问题得到妥善解决的程度较高，强调了它们在医疗保健环境中的重要性。此外，医生的准时性和沟通技巧是影响这一人群就诊满意度的最重要因素，这突出了改善医疗保健服务的关键领域。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Patient Perspectives on Virtual vs In-Person Posttreatment Care for Brain Metastases

Purpose

This study aims to explore perspectives of patients with brain metastasis on posttreatment care, comparing virtual and in-person visits, and identifying factors shaping those views.

Methods and Materials

A cross-sectional survey assessed patient perspectives on posttreatment care. We offered the survey to English-fluent patients with internet access who received posttreatment care at a Brain Metastases Clinic (n = =140). One hundred twenty-three participants returned the survey, and 112 completed at least 80% of it, a criterion for inclusion. Patients received posttreatment follow-up care either virtually, in-person, or both. Nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U and Chi-Square tests, with a modified linear regression model evaluating factors related to visit satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that virtual care would be rated higher based on doctor punctuality, but lower on personal connection, communication, and overall satisfaction.

Results

Participants who experienced both visit types rated in-person visits higher for personal connection (χ²(df = 1) = 19.703, P < .0001), ability to demonstrate physical problems (χ²(df = 1) = 18.778, P < .0001), and confidence in addressing health concerns (χ²(df = 1) = 16.941, P < .0001). Overall satisfaction did not significantly differ between visit types (U = 3607.5, z = 1.613, P = .107). Doctor punctuality (t = –2.328, SE = 0.32, P = .025) and communication effectiveness (t = –3.166, SE = 0.608, P = .003) were significant correlates to visit satisfaction.

Conclusions

Similar levels of satisfaction with virtual and in-person visits suggest that virtual care is a viable alternative to in-person visits. Higher ratings of personal connection felt with the physician, ability to demonstrate physical problems, and having health concerns properly addressed, within in-person visits, underscore their importance within a health care setting. Additionally, a doctor punctuality and communication skills are the most significant factors affecting visit satisfaction in this population, highlighting key areas for improvement in health care delivery.

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

Advances in Radiation Oncology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

4.30%

发文量

208

审稿时长

98 days

期刊介绍： The purpose of Advances is to provide information for clinicians who use radiation therapy by publishing: Clinical trial reports and reanalyses. Basic science original reports. Manuscripts examining health services research, comparative and cost effectiveness research, and systematic reviews. Case reports documenting unusual problems and solutions. High quality multi and single institutional series, as well as other novel retrospective hypothesis generating series. Timely critical reviews on important topics in radiation oncology, such as side effects. Articles reporting the natural history of disease and patterns of failure, particularly as they relate to treatment volume delineation. Articles on safety and quality in radiation therapy. Essays on clinical experience. Articles on practice transformation in radiation oncology, in particular: Aspects of health policy that may impact the future practice of radiation oncology. How information technology, such as data analytics and systems innovations, will change radiation oncology practice. Articles on imaging as they relate to radiation therapy treatment.