Cargando…

Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence

BACKGROUND: Cancer information service (CIS) programmes are becoming increasingly important because patients need to obtain appropriate information and take an active role in their treatment decisions. Programme evaluation is required to determine the level of satisfaction and quality of experiences...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yamaki, Chikako, Takayama, Tomoko, Hayakawa, Masayo, Wakao, Fumihiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8705375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34949579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001635
_version_ 1784621930755653632
author Yamaki, Chikako
Takayama, Tomoko
Hayakawa, Masayo
Wakao, Fumihiko
author_facet Yamaki, Chikako
Takayama, Tomoko
Hayakawa, Masayo
Wakao, Fumihiko
author_sort Yamaki, Chikako
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cancer information service (CIS) programmes are becoming increasingly important because patients need to obtain appropriate information and take an active role in their treatment decisions. Programme evaluation is required to determine the level of satisfaction and quality of experiences of users. The purpose of this study is (1) to identify users’ evaluation of CIS programmes by both satisfaction and outcomes that reflect the quality of experience and impact of using the CIS, (2) to examine the related factors of these evaluation outcomes and (3) to analyse the differences of those relations between patients and families. METHOD: The self-reported questionnaire was answered by 447 patients and 216 families of patients who used Cancer Information Support Centres (CISCs) at 16 designated cancer hospitals from January 2016 to April 2016. We developed 12 evaluation items, including satisfaction, experience and the impact of using CISC. RESULTS: Respondents evaluated the CISC highly, especially in terms of overall satisfaction, followed by the counselling process. Immediate access to CISC was the strongest factor affecting outcomes. Patients who wanted to consult about ‘disease or symptoms’ or ‘had no specific problem’ tended to provide high scores for some outcomes, but those who wanted to consult about a ‘financial problem’ or ‘discharge or care at home’ provided negative scores. These trends were also observed in families but to a more limited extent. CONCLUSION: Users’ evaluation of CISCs was sufficiently high in terms of overall satisfaction, showing reasonable scores in outcome levels. Immediate access was the strongest factor affecting outcomes and topics of consultation more directly affected evaluation by patients than by families. The distribution of the scores of the measures and related factors was reasonable. The 12-item measurement tool employed in this study seems to be useful for quality monitoring of the CIS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8705375
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87053752022-01-10 Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence Yamaki, Chikako Takayama, Tomoko Hayakawa, Masayo Wakao, Fumihiko BMJ Open Qual Original Research BACKGROUND: Cancer information service (CIS) programmes are becoming increasingly important because patients need to obtain appropriate information and take an active role in their treatment decisions. Programme evaluation is required to determine the level of satisfaction and quality of experiences of users. The purpose of this study is (1) to identify users’ evaluation of CIS programmes by both satisfaction and outcomes that reflect the quality of experience and impact of using the CIS, (2) to examine the related factors of these evaluation outcomes and (3) to analyse the differences of those relations between patients and families. METHOD: The self-reported questionnaire was answered by 447 patients and 216 families of patients who used Cancer Information Support Centres (CISCs) at 16 designated cancer hospitals from January 2016 to April 2016. We developed 12 evaluation items, including satisfaction, experience and the impact of using CISC. RESULTS: Respondents evaluated the CISC highly, especially in terms of overall satisfaction, followed by the counselling process. Immediate access to CISC was the strongest factor affecting outcomes. Patients who wanted to consult about ‘disease or symptoms’ or ‘had no specific problem’ tended to provide high scores for some outcomes, but those who wanted to consult about a ‘financial problem’ or ‘discharge or care at home’ provided negative scores. These trends were also observed in families but to a more limited extent. CONCLUSION: Users’ evaluation of CISCs was sufficiently high in terms of overall satisfaction, showing reasonable scores in outcome levels. Immediate access was the strongest factor affecting outcomes and topics of consultation more directly affected evaluation by patients than by families. The distribution of the scores of the measures and related factors was reasonable. The 12-item measurement tool employed in this study seems to be useful for quality monitoring of the CIS. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8705375/ /pubmed/34949579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001635 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Yamaki, Chikako
Takayama, Tomoko
Hayakawa, Masayo
Wakao, Fumihiko
Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence
title Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence
title_full Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence
title_fullStr Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence
title_full_unstemmed Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence
title_short Users’ evaluation of Japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence
title_sort users’ evaluation of japan’s cancer information services: process, outcomes, satisfaction and independence
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8705375/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34949579
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001635
work_keys_str_mv AT yamakichikako usersevaluationofjapanscancerinformationservicesprocessoutcomessatisfactionandindependence
AT takayamatomoko usersevaluationofjapanscancerinformationservicesprocessoutcomessatisfactionandindependence
AT hayakawamasayo usersevaluationofjapanscancerinformationservicesprocessoutcomessatisfactionandindependence
AT wakaofumihiko usersevaluationofjapanscancerinformationservicesprocessoutcomessatisfactionandindependence