Patient preferences on the use of technology in cancer surveillance after curative surgery: A cross-sectional analysis.
Journal
Surgery
ISSN: 1532-7361
Titre abrégé: Surgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0417347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
received:
12
11
2018
revised:
21
12
2018
accepted:
22
12
2018
pubmed:
17
2
2019
medline:
19
12
2019
entrez:
17
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Advances in communication technology have enabled new methods of delivering test results to cancer survivors. We sought to determine patient preferences regarding the use of newer technology in delivering test results during cancer surveillance. A single institutional, cross-sectional analysis of the preferences of adult cancer survivors regarding the means (secure digital communication versus phone call or office visit) to receive surveillance test results was undertaken. Among 257 respondents, the average age was 59.1 years (SD 13.5) and 61.8% were female. Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (29.5%), thyroid (25.7%), breast (22.8%), and gastrointestinal (22.0%) cancer. Although patients expressed a relative preference to receive normal surveillance results via MyChart or secure e-mail, the majority preferred abnormal imaging (87.2%) or blood results (85.9%) to be communicated by in-office appointments or phone calls irrespective of age or cancer type. Patients with a college degree or higher were more likely to prefer electronic means of communication of abnormal blood results compared with a telephone call or in-person visit (odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-4.73, P < .05). In contrast, patients >65 years were more likely to express a preference for telephone or in-person communication of normal imaging results (odds ratio: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.16-3.56, P < .05) versus patients ≤65 years. Preference also varied according to malignancy type. Although many cancer patients preferred to receive "normal" surveillance results electronically, the majority preferred receiving abnormal results via direct conversation with their provider. Shifting routine communication of normal surveillance results to technology-based applications may improve patient satisfaction and decrease health care system costs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Advances in communication technology have enabled new methods of delivering test results to cancer survivors. We sought to determine patient preferences regarding the use of newer technology in delivering test results during cancer surveillance.
METHODS
A single institutional, cross-sectional analysis of the preferences of adult cancer survivors regarding the means (secure digital communication versus phone call or office visit) to receive surveillance test results was undertaken.
RESULTS
Among 257 respondents, the average age was 59.1 years (SD 13.5) and 61.8% were female. Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (29.5%), thyroid (25.7%), breast (22.8%), and gastrointestinal (22.0%) cancer. Although patients expressed a relative preference to receive normal surveillance results via MyChart or secure e-mail, the majority preferred abnormal imaging (87.2%) or blood results (85.9%) to be communicated by in-office appointments or phone calls irrespective of age or cancer type. Patients with a college degree or higher were more likely to prefer electronic means of communication of abnormal blood results compared with a telephone call or in-person visit (odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-4.73, P < .05). In contrast, patients >65 years were more likely to express a preference for telephone or in-person communication of normal imaging results (odds ratio: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.16-3.56, P < .05) versus patients ≤65 years. Preference also varied according to malignancy type.
CONCLUSION
Although many cancer patients preferred to receive "normal" surveillance results electronically, the majority preferred receiving abnormal results via direct conversation with their provider. Shifting routine communication of normal surveillance results to technology-based applications may improve patient satisfaction and decrease health care system costs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30770135
pii: S0039-6060(19)30006-6
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.12.021
pmc: PMC6420846
mid: NIHMS1012915
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
782-788Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI106704
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2005 Aug 05;7(4):e47
pubmed: 16236699
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Jul;59(564):e234-47
pubmed: 19566990
BMJ. 2000 Jun 3;320(7248):1517-20
pubmed: 10834899
J Med Internet Res. 2004 May 14;6(2):e12
pubmed: 15249261
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Jan;22(1):163-72
pubmed: 24018909
JAMA. 2018 May 22;319(20):2104-2115
pubmed: 29800181
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep;10(3):200-4
pubmed: 24934093
Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 16;144(10):742-52
pubmed: 16702590
Oncologist. 2015 Dec;20(12):1378-85
pubmed: 26512045
Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Nov;50(11):1783-99
pubmed: 17874269
Am J Manag Care. 2007 Jul;13(7):418-24
pubmed: 17620037
J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Oct;17(10):1774-1783
pubmed: 23943387
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 10;27(17):2758-65
pubmed: 19403886
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 09;19(1):e11
pubmed: 28069561
Surgery. 2013 Aug;154(2):256-65
pubmed: 23889953
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009 Jun;16(3):281-9
pubmed: 19407659
Eur J Heart Fail. 2003 Oct;5(5):583-90
pubmed: 14607195
Telemed J E Health. 2013 Oct;19(10):786-90
pubmed: 23931702
BMC Cancer. 2014 May 03;14:311
pubmed: 24885758
Acta Oncol. 1994;33(2):119-25
pubmed: 8204268
Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):729-35
pubmed: 25900782
JAMA. 1998 Jun 3;279(21):1709-14
pubmed: 9624023
Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Mar;16(2):151-70
pubmed: 15868456
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct 20;31(30):3749-57
pubmed: 24043731
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Mar 06;16(3):e75
pubmed: 24610454
BMJ. 2003 Jul 12;327(7406):84
pubmed: 12855528
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:1070-9
pubmed: 22195168
N Engl J Med. 2011 May 26;364(21):2060-5
pubmed: 21612477
Br J Cancer. 2004 Mar 22;90(6):1144-50
pubmed: 15026793
Cancer. 2015 Oct 1;121(19):3525-33
pubmed: 26079928
BMJ. 2007 May 5;334(7600):942
pubmed: 17426062
Med J Aust. 2013 Sep 16;199(6):414-7
pubmed: 24033216
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Dec 06;5(12):e177
pubmed: 29212629
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 24;11:CD002200
pubmed: 27884041
Am J Manag Care. 2006 Aug;12(8):467-74
pubmed: 16886889
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jul;25(7):1029-36
pubmed: 27371756
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;36(10):1020-1044
pubmed: 29380678
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013 May 1;20(3):519-25
pubmed: 23242764
BMJ. 2009 Jan 14;338:a3147
pubmed: 19147478
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005 Jun;115(6):1137-42
pubmed: 15940125
JAMA. 2010 Mar 17;303(11):1086-7
pubmed: 20233828
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Aug 04;(8):CD007228
pubmed: 20687083
J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10 Suppl 1:27-9
pubmed: 15603601
Support Care Cancer. 2006 Jul;14(7):742-52
pubmed: 16525792
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Feb 1;24(4):626-34
pubmed: 16401682
J Oncol Pract. 2012 May;8(3 Suppl):e38s-43s
pubmed: 22942833
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2002 Aug;69(2):137-46
pubmed: 12100793