Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26416612›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Determinants of patient-reported experience of cancer services responsiveness.

Dominique Tremblay, Danièle Roberge, Djamal Berbiche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Brain cancer patient and support persons' experiences of psychosocial care: a mapping of research outputs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Review
  12. Patients' Satisfaction by SmileInHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dominique TremblayNursing School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Longueuil, QC, Canada. dominique.tremblay2@usherbrooke.ca.
Danièle RobergeCharles-Le Moyne Hospital Research Centre, Greenfield Park, Longueuil, QC, Canada. daniele.roberge@usherbrooke.ca.
Djamal BerbicheCharles-Le Moyne Hospital Research Centre, Greenfield Park, Longueuil, QC, Canada. djamal.berbiche@usherbrooke.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn coming years, patient-reported data are expected to play a more prominent role in ensuring early and efficient detection of healthcare system dysfunctions, developing interventions and evaluating their effects on health outcomes, and monitoring quality of care from the patient's perspective. The concept of responsiveness relates to patient-reported experience measures that focus on the system's response to service users' legitimate expectations. We explored this concept in an effort to address unresolved issues related to measuring and interpreting patient experience. Our objectives in this study were to report on patients' perceptions of cancer services responsiveness and to identify patient characteristics and organizational attributes that are potential determinants of a positive patient-reported experience.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted of 1379 cancer patients in nine participating ambulatory cancer clinics in hospitals across the province of Quebec, Canada. They were invited to complete the Cancer Services Responsiveness tool, a 19-item questionnaire evaluating patients' perceptions of the responsiveness of cancer services. Sociodemographic data and self-reported clinical and organizational data were collected. Descriptive statistical analysis, univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed.

resultsThe patients surveyed generally perceived cancer services as highly responsive. The individual determinants of overall responsiveness found to be significant were self-assessed health status, age, and education level; organizational determinants were academic affiliation and geographic location of the clinic. DISCUSSION: Responsiveness refers to distinctive indicators of healthcare quality focused on patient-provider interactions and presents a complementary picture to other patient-reported experience measures. The identified determinants of patients' positive experience with cancer services provide valuable information to guide care providers in targeting quality improvements.

conclusionsFinally, our results suggest these determinants should be further studied to eliminate confounders and produce usable results.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient SatisfactionQuality of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuebecSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26416612
PMCPMC4587918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.