Are National Cancer Control Indicators for patient experiences being met in regional and remote Australia? A cross-sectional study of cancer survivors who travelled for treatment

Dunn, J; Goodwin, B; Aitken, JF; March, S; Crawford-Williams, F; Ireland, M; Ralph, N; Zajdlewicz, L; Rowe, A; Chambers, SK

Are National Cancer Control Indicators for patient experiences being met in regional and remote Australia? A cross-sectional study of cancer survivors who travelled for treatment

Dunn, J Goodwin, B Aitken, JF March, S Crawford-Williams, F Ireland, M Ralph, N

Zajdlewicz, L Rowe, A Chambers, SK

Permalink

Publisher:: BMJ Journals
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: BMJ Open, 2021, 11, (2)
Issue Date:: 2021-02-22

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (538.12 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Dunn, J
dc.contributor.author	Goodwin, B
dc.contributor.author	Aitken, JF
dc.contributor.author	March, S
dc.contributor.author	Crawford-Williams, F
dc.contributor.author	Ireland, M
dc.contributor.author	Ralph, N https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7404-9996
dc.contributor.author	Zajdlewicz, L
dc.contributor.author	Rowe, A
dc.contributor.author	Chambers, SK
dc.date.accessioned	2021-09-09T04:12:10Z
dc.date.available	2021-09-09T04:12:10Z
dc.date.issued	2021-02-22
dc.identifier.citation	BMJ Open, 2021, 11, (2)
dc.identifier.issn	2044-6055
dc.identifier.issn	2044-6055
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/150421
dc.description.abstract	<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the health services experience of patients with cancer from regional and remote Australia using the Australian National Cancer Control Indicators (NCCI) guidelines as an assessment framework.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional.<h4>Setting</h4>Queensland non-for-profit cancer accommodation lodges.<h4>Participants</h4>Participants were patients with cancer who travelled for treatment from rural and remote Queensland to major urban centres (n=518; age mean=64.6, SD=11.18).<h4>Outcome measures</h4>Assessments included NCCI patient indicators, quality of life (QoL), psychological distress and unmet supportive care needs.<h4>Results</h4>The frequency at which NCCI indicators were met ranged from 37.5% for receiving an assessment and care plan to 97.3% for understanding explanations about diagnosis. Geographical considerations did not impact patient experience, whereas middle school educated participants were more likely than those with senior-level education or higher to receive an assessment and care plan (OR=1.90, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.91) and to report having their views on treatment taken into account (OR=2.22, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.33). Patients with breast or prostate cancer reported better communication and patient involvement and information and services provision (<i>r</i>=p<0.001) compared with those with skin and head and neck cancer. When compared with information and service provision, communication and patient involvement showed stronger positive associations with QoL (<i>z</i>=2.03, p=0.042), psychosocial (<i>z</i>=2.05, p=0.040) and patient care (<i>z</i>=2.00, p=0.046) outcomes.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The patient care experience varies across the NCCI indicators by sociodemographic and clinical factors that likely reflect healthcare system biases. Perceptions about communication and involvement appear most critical for optimal outcomes and should be a priority action area for cancer control.
dc.format	Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	BMJ Journals
dc.relation.ispartof	BMJ Open
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042507
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1103 Clinical Sciences, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Queensland
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Outcome Assessment
dc.subject.mesh	Cancer Survivors
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Cancer Survivors
dc.subject.mesh	Cross-Sectional Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Male
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Outcome Assessment
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life
dc.subject.mesh	Queensland
dc.title	Are National Cancer Control Indicators for patient experiences being met in regional and remote Australia? A cross-sectional study of cancer survivors who travelled for treatment
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	11
utslib.location.activity	England
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
utslib.for	1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2021-09-09T04:12:07Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	11
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

Objective

To examine the health services experience of patients with cancer from regional and remote Australia using the Australian National Cancer Control Indicators (NCCI) guidelines as an assessment framework.

Design

Cross-sectional.

Setting

Queensland non-for-profit cancer accommodation lodges.

Participants

Participants were patients with cancer who travelled for treatment from rural and remote Queensland to major urban centres (n=518; age mean=64.6, SD=11.18).

Outcome measures

Assessments included NCCI patient indicators, quality of life (QoL), psychological distress and unmet supportive care needs.

Results

The frequency at which NCCI indicators were met ranged from 37.5% for receiving an assessment and care plan to 97.3% for understanding explanations about diagnosis. Geographical considerations did not impact patient experience, whereas middle school educated participants were more likely than those with senior-level education or higher to receive an assessment and care plan (OR=1.90, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.91) and to report having their views on treatment taken into account (OR=2.22, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.33). Patients with breast or prostate cancer reported better communication and patient involvement and information and services provision (r=p<0.001) compared with those with skin and head and neck cancer. When compared with information and service provision, communication and patient involvement showed stronger positive associations with QoL (z=2.03, p=0.042), psychosocial (z=2.05, p=0.040) and patient care (z=2.00, p=0.046) outcomes.

Conclusion

The patient care experience varies across the NCCI indicators by sociodemographic and clinical factors that likely reflect healthcare system biases. Perceptions about communication and involvement appear most critical for optimal outcomes and should be a priority action area for cancer control.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/150421