ArticlePatient preference and adherence2014
Patient preferences and satisfaction in a multispecialty infusion center.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying service quality gaps between patients and providers in a Native American outpatient clinic.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Qualitative factors shaping MS patients' experiences of infusible disease-modifying drugs: a critical incident technique analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Patient Preferences for Time and Location of Infusible Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunologic Disorders.International journal of MS careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDirect feedback from patients about their preferred modes of medication administration has been increasingly sought by providers to develop care programs that best match patient goals. Multispecialty infusion centers generally provide care to hematology-oncology (HO) and non-HO patients in one unit, with the same nursing staff. Our staff perceived that this was dissatisfying to our non-HO patients. We assessed patient satisfaction, as well as nursing and physician perceptions of patient preference/satisfaction with our infusion center, to determine whether a separate unit should be recommended when designing our new Cancer Institute Infusion Center. PATIENTS AND
methodsA seven-question Likert scale satisfaction survey for patients, and a separate survey to assess nurses' and physicians' perception of patient satisfaction, were developed. The survey was administered to non-HO patients receiving infusions, doctors prescribing infusions, and nurses administering infusions. Results of the survey were compared between groups to assess differences in responses.
resultsResponses were received from 52 non-HO patients, 18 physicians, and 13 nurses. Patients had more satisfaction, on all survey items, with the multispecialty infusion center than had been realized by physicians and nurses. Analysis demonstrated that patients were satisfied with care in a multispecialty infusion unit and were in favor of continuing their care in this combined center. Total scores of patient surveys were significantly different (P<0.001) from those of physicians and nurses, who had assumed patients would prefer to have their care in a non-HO infusion setting.
conclusionUnderstanding patient preferences is an important step in deciding the structure of infusion centers. Based on these survey conclusions, a combined multispecialty infusion center has been continued at our institution, thus improving quality by including patients in decision-making affecting their care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.