Cargando…

A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether partner (spouse or intimate partner) engagement in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is associated with patient receipt of surveillance. METHODS: From 2019 to 2020 we surveyed Stage III CRC survivors diagnosed 2014–2018 at an academic cancer center, a community...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Veenstra, Christine M., Ellis, Katrina R., Abrahamse, Paul, Ward, Kevin C., Morris, Arden M., Hawley, Sarah T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36229796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10131-3
_version_ 1784807572407058432
author Veenstra, Christine M.
Ellis, Katrina R.
Abrahamse, Paul
Ward, Kevin C.
Morris, Arden M.
Hawley, Sarah T.
author_facet Veenstra, Christine M.
Ellis, Katrina R.
Abrahamse, Paul
Ward, Kevin C.
Morris, Arden M.
Hawley, Sarah T.
author_sort Veenstra, Christine M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We investigated whether partner (spouse or intimate partner) engagement in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is associated with patient receipt of surveillance. METHODS: From 2019 to 2020 we surveyed Stage III CRC survivors diagnosed 2014–2018 at an academic cancer center, a community oncology practice and the Georgia SEER registry, and their partners. Partner engagement was measured across 3 domains: Informed about; Involved in; and Aware of patient preferences around surveillance. We evaluated bivariate associations between domains of partner engagement and independent partner variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of engagement with patient-reported receipt of surveillance. RESULTS: 501 patients responded (51% response rate); 428 had partners. 311 partners responded (73% response rate). Partners were engaged across all domains. Engagement varied by sociodemographics. Greater partner involvement was associated with decreased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.93) and trended towards significance for decreased odds of receipt of endoscopy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34–1.03) and CEA (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55–1.04). Greater partner awareness was associated with increased odds of patients’ receipt of endoscopy (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.15–4.12) and trended towards significance for increased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.91–2.04). CONCLUSION: Partners are engaged (informed, involved, and aware) in CRC surveillance. Future research to develop dyadic interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of partner engagement may help partners effectively engage in surveillance to improve patient care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10131-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9559022
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95590222022-10-14 A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance Veenstra, Christine M. Ellis, Katrina R. Abrahamse, Paul Ward, Kevin C. Morris, Arden M. Hawley, Sarah T. BMC Cancer Research BACKGROUND: We investigated whether partner (spouse or intimate partner) engagement in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is associated with patient receipt of surveillance. METHODS: From 2019 to 2020 we surveyed Stage III CRC survivors diagnosed 2014–2018 at an academic cancer center, a community oncology practice and the Georgia SEER registry, and their partners. Partner engagement was measured across 3 domains: Informed about; Involved in; and Aware of patient preferences around surveillance. We evaluated bivariate associations between domains of partner engagement and independent partner variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of engagement with patient-reported receipt of surveillance. RESULTS: 501 patients responded (51% response rate); 428 had partners. 311 partners responded (73% response rate). Partners were engaged across all domains. Engagement varied by sociodemographics. Greater partner involvement was associated with decreased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.93) and trended towards significance for decreased odds of receipt of endoscopy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34–1.03) and CEA (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55–1.04). Greater partner awareness was associated with increased odds of patients’ receipt of endoscopy (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.15–4.12) and trended towards significance for increased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.91–2.04). CONCLUSION: Partners are engaged (informed, involved, and aware) in CRC surveillance. Future research to develop dyadic interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of partner engagement may help partners effectively engage in surveillance to improve patient care. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10131-3. BioMed Central 2022-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9559022/ /pubmed/36229796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10131-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Veenstra, Christine M.
Ellis, Katrina R.
Abrahamse, Paul
Ward, Kevin C.
Morris, Arden M.
Hawley, Sarah T.
A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance
title A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance
title_full A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance
title_fullStr A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance
title_full_unstemmed A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance
title_short A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance
title_sort dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36229796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10131-3
work_keys_str_mv AT veenstrachristinem adyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT elliskatrinar adyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT abrahamsepaul adyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT wardkevinc adyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT morrisardenm adyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT hawleysaraht adyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT veenstrachristinem dyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT elliskatrinar dyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT abrahamsepaul dyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT wardkevinc dyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT morrisardenm dyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance
AT hawleysaraht dyadicsurveystudyofpartnerengagementinandpatientreceiptofguidelinerecommendedcolorectalcancersurveillance