Self-help friendliness in cancer care: A cross-sectional study among self-help group leaders in Germany.
cancer care
cooperation
patient involvement
patient participation
peer support
quality management
self-help friendliness
Journal
Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
revised:
23
08
2022
received:
07
03
2022
accepted:
08
09
2022
pubmed:
22
9
2022
medline:
30
11
2022
entrez:
21
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Peer support is increasingly recognized as crucial for improving health and psychosocial outcomes in oncological care. The integration of cancer self-help groups (SHGs) into cancer care facilities has gained importance in recent years. Yet, there is a lack of knowledge of the extent and quality of cooperation between cancer care facilities and SHGs and their integration into routine care. The concept of self-help friendliness (SHF) provides a feasible instrument for the measurement of cooperation and integration. A cross-sectional study across Germany investigates the experiences of 266 leaders of cancer SHGs concerning their cooperation with cancer care facilities based on the criteria for SHF. The participatory study was developed and conducted with representatives of the House of Cancer Self-Help and the federal associations of cancer self-help. According to the SHG leaders, about 80% of their members primarily find their way to an SHG via other patients and only less than 50% more or less frequently via hospitals or rehabilitation clinics. The quality of cooperation with cancer centres, hospitals and rehabilitation clinics, however, is rated as good to very good by more than 70% of the respondents. Nine out of 10 quality criteria for SHF are fully or at least partially implemented, the values vary between 53% and 87%. Overall, 58% of the SHG leaders feel well to be very well integrated into care facilities. The results show a positive assessment of the involvement of SHGs in oncological care, but differences between inpatient and outpatient care and low referrals to SHGs are prominent. The concept of SHF is a feasible solution for a systematic and measurable involvement of SHGs. The perspectives and insight of patient representatives obtained through qualitative interviews were directly incorporated into this study. Representatives of cancer self-help organizations were involved in the development of the questionnaire, reviewed it for content and comprehensibility, and further helped to recruit participants.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Peer support is increasingly recognized as crucial for improving health and psychosocial outcomes in oncological care. The integration of cancer self-help groups (SHGs) into cancer care facilities has gained importance in recent years. Yet, there is a lack of knowledge of the extent and quality of cooperation between cancer care facilities and SHGs and their integration into routine care. The concept of self-help friendliness (SHF) provides a feasible instrument for the measurement of cooperation and integration.
METHODS
A cross-sectional study across Germany investigates the experiences of 266 leaders of cancer SHGs concerning their cooperation with cancer care facilities based on the criteria for SHF. The participatory study was developed and conducted with representatives of the House of Cancer Self-Help and the federal associations of cancer self-help.
RESULTS
According to the SHG leaders, about 80% of their members primarily find their way to an SHG via other patients and only less than 50% more or less frequently via hospitals or rehabilitation clinics. The quality of cooperation with cancer centres, hospitals and rehabilitation clinics, however, is rated as good to very good by more than 70% of the respondents. Nine out of 10 quality criteria for SHF are fully or at least partially implemented, the values vary between 53% and 87%. Overall, 58% of the SHG leaders feel well to be very well integrated into care facilities.
CONCLUSIONS
The results show a positive assessment of the involvement of SHGs in oncological care, but differences between inpatient and outpatient care and low referrals to SHGs are prominent. The concept of SHF is a feasible solution for a systematic and measurable involvement of SHGs.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
The perspectives and insight of patient representatives obtained through qualitative interviews were directly incorporated into this study. Representatives of cancer self-help organizations were involved in the development of the questionnaire, reviewed it for content and comprehensibility, and further helped to recruit participants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36129136
doi: 10.1111/hex.13608
pmc: PMC9700191
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3005-3016Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Apr;22(4):1049-58
pubmed: 24287509
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Apr;101(4):711-716
pubmed: 29191626
J Bioeth Inq. 2018 Sep;15(3):351-358
pubmed: 29968017
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2019 Jan;62(1):3-9
pubmed: 30515525
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
J Health Commun. 2014;19 Suppl 2:205-24
pubmed: 25315594
Cancer Nurs. 2001 Jun;24(3):212-9
pubmed: 11409065
J Cancer Educ. 2017 Mar;32(1):97-104
pubmed: 26477478
Health Policy. 2017 Oct;121(10):1047-1052
pubmed: 28890239
Psychooncology. 2018 Oct;27(10):2473-2481
pubmed: 30092120
Health Expect. 2009 Sep;12(3):275-87
pubmed: 19754691
CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Jan-Feb;61(1):50-62
pubmed: 21205833
Psychooncology. 2022 May;31(5):683-704
pubmed: 34981594
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2019 Jan;62(1):56-63
pubmed: 30478486
Int J Nurs Stud. 2003 Mar;40(3):321-32
pubmed: 12605954
BMJ Open. 2021 Nov 3;11(11):e053916
pubmed: 34732498
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2019 Jan;62(1):40-48
pubmed: 30467817
BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Mar 28;15:56
pubmed: 24673983
Psychooncology. 2019 Feb;28(2):379-385
pubmed: 30485590
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Sep;99(9):1511-8
pubmed: 27378079
Am J Psychol. 1987 Fall-Winter;100(3-4):441-71
pubmed: 3322052
J Nippon Med Sch. 2022 Mar 11;89(1):16-23
pubmed: 34840208
BJU Int. 2007 Jan;99(1):68-71
pubmed: 17026599
Front Public Health. 2015 Apr 27;2:214
pubmed: 25964922
Can Oncol Nurs J. 2008 Winter;18(1):6-24
pubmed: 18512565
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2011 Sep;32(3):147-53
pubmed: 21714705
Lancet. 2018 Mar 17;391(10125):1023-1075
pubmed: 29395269
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019 Dec;66(12):e27991
pubmed: 31524328
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 10;28(32):4862-7
pubmed: 20855821
CA Cancer J Clin. 2002 May-Jun;52(3):134-49
pubmed: 12018928
Health Expect. 2017 Apr;20(2):274-287
pubmed: 27018772
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2021 Apr;51:101925
pubmed: 33647543
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Dec;123:217-25
pubmed: 24999073
Health Expect. 2014 Oct;17(5):637-50
pubmed: 22809132
Health Expect. 2022 Dec;25(6):3005-3016
pubmed: 36129136
Health Promot Int. 2016 Jun;31(2):303-13
pubmed: 25500993
Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Oct;55(1):3-15
pubmed: 15476984
Oncology. 2015;89(4):242-4
pubmed: 26065581
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Dec;99(12):1923-1939
pubmed: 27450481
Support Care Cancer. 2019 Feb;27(2):677-685
pubmed: 30056530