Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37454078›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Patients' perspectives on the quality of care of a new complex psycho-oncological care programme in Germany - external mixed methods evaluation results.

Natalia Cecon-Stabel, Sandra Salm, Holger Pfaff, Antje Dresen, Theresia Krieger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Natalia Cecon-StabelFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Faculty of Human Sciences, Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. natalia.cecon@uk-koeln.de.
Sandra SalmGoethe University Frankfurt, Institute of General Practice, Frankfurt, Germany.
Holger PfaffFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Faculty of Human Sciences, Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Antje DresenFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Faculty of Human Sciences, Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Theresia KriegerMedical Psychology, Neuropsychology and Gender Studies and Center for Neuropsychological Diagnostics and Intervention (CeNDI), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee 01NVF17022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuideline-compliant provision of psycho-oncological (PO) care is still challenging in Germany. Hence, a new care programme, called integrated cross-sectoral psycho-oncology (isPO), was implemented to improve the integration of needs-oriented PO care. Quality of care (QoC) was externally evaluated from the patient's perspective. We aim to gain insight into patients' experiences with isPO and how their assessment affects relevant patient-reported outcomes (anxiety and depression, health status, and work ability).

methodsAn explanatory, sequential mixed-methods design was applied. Patients were surveyed twice during their 1-year care trajectory: after 3 (T1) and 12 (T2) months. Data sets were matched using pseudonyms. Care documentation data, including sociodemographic characteristics and the primary outcome variable (anxiety and depression), were matched. In the survey, patients rated their satisfaction with respective isPO service providers and the programme in general (QoC). Health status (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and work ability (WAS) were measured. Descriptive analyses and t-tests for dependent samples were conducted to assess changes in outcome variables over time. Linear regression analyses were conducted to assess whether care satisfaction predicted outcome variables. Patients who completed their isPO care trajectory were asked to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews to share their experiences. Purposeful sampling was applied. All 23 interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed via content-structuring method.

resultsPatients reported medium-to-high satisfaction with their isPO care. All patient-related outcomes significantly improved over time and QoC measures predicted those outcomes. Needs orientation (e.g., care intensity or mode of delivery) was perceived as essential for high QoC, and outpatient care with fixed contact persons as highly important for care continuity. Furthermore, patients identified programme optimisation needs, such as period of care or extension of care to relatives.

conclusionsPatients assessed the isPO programme's QoC positively. They identified facilitators for QoC and optimisation needs. Therefore, data on QoC can function as an indicator for a programme's feasibility and maturity within care reality. As patients' care satisfaction positively influences important patient-related outcomes, it may be routinely considered for quality management. Based on patients' perspectives, isPO seems to be recommendable for routine psycho-oncological care in Germany, if ongoing programme optimisation within structured quality management is guaranteed.

trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (No. DRKS00015326) on 30.10.2018.

Indexed as

PatientsPsycho-OncologyContinuity of Patient CareGermanyHealth StatusHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesComplex interventionEvaluationMixed methodsPatient perspectivePsycho-oncologyQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID37454078
PMCPMC10349427

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.