Cargando…

A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners

OBJECTIVE: To test whether a complex intervention facilitating early cancer rehabilitation by involvement of the general practitioner (GP) soon after diagnosis improves patients’ satisfaction with their GPs. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bergholdt, Stinne Holm, Hansen, Dorte Gilså, Larsen, Pia Veldt, Kragstrup, Jakob, Søndergaard, Jens
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23824312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002726
_version_ 1782275922698698752
author Bergholdt, Stinne Holm
Hansen, Dorte Gilså
Larsen, Pia Veldt
Kragstrup, Jakob
Søndergaard, Jens
author_facet Bergholdt, Stinne Holm
Hansen, Dorte Gilså
Larsen, Pia Veldt
Kragstrup, Jakob
Søndergaard, Jens
author_sort Bergholdt, Stinne Holm
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To test whether a complex intervention facilitating early cancer rehabilitation by involvement of the general practitioner (GP) soon after diagnosis improves patients’ satisfaction with their GPs. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention or a control group before the start of the study. Patients included those with cancer who were subsequently allocated to either group based on the randomisation status of their GP. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with cancer treated for incident cancer at the public regional hospital (Vejle Hospital, Denmark) were included between May 2008 and February 2009. A total of 955 patients registered with 323 practices were included, of which 486 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 469 to the control group. INTERVENTION: The intervention included a patient interview assessing the need for rehabilitation, improved information from the hospital to GPs including information on the patients’ current needs along with information about needs of patients with cancer in general. Further, GPs were encouraged to proactively contact the patients and facilitate the patients’ rehabilitation course. OUTCOME MEASURES: 6 months after inclusion of the patient, patient satisfaction with their GP during the last 12 months in five different dimensions of GP care was assessed using the Danish version of the EuroPEP (European Patients Evaluate General Practice Care) questionnaire (DanPEP). 14 months after inclusion, patient satisfaction with the GP regarding the cancer course and GP's satisfaction with own contribution to the patients’ rehabilitation course were assessed using ad hoc questions specifically designed for this study. RESULTS: No overall effect of the intervention was observed. Subgroup analysis of the patients with breast cancer showed statistically significant improvement of satisfaction with the GP in two of the five DanPEP dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: This complex intervention aiming at improving GPs’ services in cancer rehabilitation had no impact on patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3703581
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37035812013-07-08 A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners Bergholdt, Stinne Holm Hansen, Dorte Gilså Larsen, Pia Veldt Kragstrup, Jakob Søndergaard, Jens BMJ Open Oncology OBJECTIVE: To test whether a complex intervention facilitating early cancer rehabilitation by involvement of the general practitioner (GP) soon after diagnosis improves patients’ satisfaction with their GPs. DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial. All general practices in Denmark were randomised to an intervention or a control group before the start of the study. Patients included those with cancer who were subsequently allocated to either group based on the randomisation status of their GP. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with cancer treated for incident cancer at the public regional hospital (Vejle Hospital, Denmark) were included between May 2008 and February 2009. A total of 955 patients registered with 323 practices were included, of which 486 patients were allocated to the intervention group and 469 to the control group. INTERVENTION: The intervention included a patient interview assessing the need for rehabilitation, improved information from the hospital to GPs including information on the patients’ current needs along with information about needs of patients with cancer in general. Further, GPs were encouraged to proactively contact the patients and facilitate the patients’ rehabilitation course. OUTCOME MEASURES: 6 months after inclusion of the patient, patient satisfaction with their GP during the last 12 months in five different dimensions of GP care was assessed using the Danish version of the EuroPEP (European Patients Evaluate General Practice Care) questionnaire (DanPEP). 14 months after inclusion, patient satisfaction with the GP regarding the cancer course and GP's satisfaction with own contribution to the patients’ rehabilitation course were assessed using ad hoc questions specifically designed for this study. RESULTS: No overall effect of the intervention was observed. Subgroup analysis of the patients with breast cancer showed statistically significant improvement of satisfaction with the GP in two of the five DanPEP dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: This complex intervention aiming at improving GPs’ services in cancer rehabilitation had no impact on patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration ID number NCT01021371 BMJ Publishing Group 2013-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3703581/ /pubmed/23824312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002726 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
spellingShingle Oncology
Bergholdt, Stinne Holm
Hansen, Dorte Gilså
Larsen, Pia Veldt
Kragstrup, Jakob
Søndergaard, Jens
A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners
title A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners
title_full A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners
title_fullStr A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners
title_full_unstemmed A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners
title_short A randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners
title_sort randomised controlled trial to improve the role of the general practitioner in cancer rehabilitation: effect on patients’ satisfaction with their general practitioners
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23824312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002726
work_keys_str_mv AT bergholdtstinneholm arandomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT hansendortegilsa arandomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT larsenpiaveldt arandomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT kragstrupjakob arandomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT søndergaardjens arandomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT bergholdtstinneholm randomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT hansendortegilsa randomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT larsenpiaveldt randomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT kragstrupjakob randomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners
AT søndergaardjens randomisedcontrolledtrialtoimprovetheroleofthegeneralpractitionerincancerrehabilitationeffectonpatientssatisfactionwiththeirgeneralpractitioners