The combined effect of cancer and chronic diseases on general practitioner consultation rates

Effect of chronic diseases on willingness to receive the second COVID-19 vaccine booster dose among cancer patients: A multicenter cross-sectional survey in China

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients and those with chronic diseases face severe outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, their willingness to receive a second booster dose remains low. This study identified factors affecting the willingness of cancer patients with chronic diseases (CPCD) and cancer patients without chronic diseases (non-CPCD) to receive the second COVID-19 booster vaccine dose.

METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted across 4 tertiary care hospitals in China. Based on the Health Belief Model, a questionnaire assessed respondents' perceptions of the second booster dose. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed factors influencing the willingness to receive a second vaccine dose.

RESULTS

Out of 171 CPCD and 722 non-CPCD, CPCD showed a higher willingness to receive the second booster dose than non-CPCD (46.8% vs 32.3%, P < .001). Factors influencing CPCD's willingness included the belief that vaccination was detrimental to cancer treatment and the perceived higher infection risk compared to healthy individuals. Fear of vaccination's negative impact on cancer treatment was the main factor affecting non-CPCD's willingness (each P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Different factors influenced the willingness of the 2 groups. Health education interventions should be implemented alongside vaccination, involving patients' relatives and medical staff, for both CPCD and non-CPCD populations. Additionally, health management service interventions should emphasize the benefits of vaccination for CPCD to improve their second dose coverage.

[Psychometric Properties of the Qualiskope-A for Measuring Patient Satisfaction with Outpatient Medical Treatment: Use in Oncology and Transferability to Inpatient Care]

AIM

The Qualiskope-A is a German-language PREM (Patient Reported Experience Measure) which, with the help of 27 items allocated to four scales, enables measurement of patient satisfaction with outpatient medical treatment along four dimensions of patient satisfaction. This study examined whether the questionnaire delivers reliable results in an oncological population and whether its application can be extended to inpatient care.

METHOD

Required data was collected as part of the PIKKO study. Initially, descriptive statistics and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the PREM's scales were analyzed. In addition, a sub-sample that assessed the same doctor at two consecutive measurement time points was observed with regard to test-retest reliability (Spearman correlation (rs) between both measurement time points). The measurement model of the Qualiskope-A was then examined using confirmatory factor analysis. To test the transferability to inpatient care, measurement invariance with regard to outpatients and inpatients was computed.

RESULTS

A total of 476 patients was included in the study. Every score of the Qualiskope-A showed a left-skewed distribution in the sample and revealed pronounced ceiling effects. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were consistently>0,8. Within the test-retest group (n=197), a strong correlation (rs>0,5) was observed between the measurement time points. The fit indices calculated using confirmatory factor analysis showed a good model fit (CFI=0,958; RMSEA=0,026; SRMR=0,040; every factor loadings>0,6). The fit indices, calculated as part of the investigation of measurement invariance, consistently met the defined threshold values.

CONCLUSION

The Qualiscope-A shows good reliability in the examined oncological sample. It can be used in both outpatient and inpatient settings (no indications of non-invariance were found). Due to pronounced ceiling effects, however, the item scaling should be revised.

Clinicians' experiences with cancer patients living longer with incurable cancer: a focus group study in the Netherlands

AIM

To explore (1) experiences of primary care physicians (PCPs) and oncological medical specialists about providing care to patients living longer with incurable cancer, and (2) their preferences concerning different care approaches (palliative support, psychological/survivorship care support).

BACKGROUND

At present, oncological medical specialists as well as PCPs are exploring how to improve and better tailor care to patients living longer with incurable cancer. Our previous study at the in-patient oncology unit showed that patients living longer with incurable cancer experience problems in how to deal with a prognosis that is insecure and fluctuating. To date, it could be argued that treating these patients can be done with a 'palliative care' or a 'survivorship/psychosocial care' approach. It is unknown what happens in actual medical practice.

METHODS

We performed multidisciplinary group meetings: 6 focus groups (3 homogenous groups with PCPs (n = 15) and 3 multidisciplinary groups (n = 17 PCPs and n = 6 medical specialists) across different parts of the Netherlands. Qualitative data were analysed with thematic analysis.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the near future, PCPs will have an increasing number of patients living longer with incurable cancer. However, in a single PCP practice, the experience with incurable cancer patients remains low, partly because patients often prefer to stay in contact with their medical specialist. PCPs as well as medical specialists show concerns in how they can address this disease phase with the right care approach, including the appropriate label (e.g. palliative, chronic, etc.). They all preferred to be in contact early in the disease process, to be able to discuss and take care for the patients' physical and psychological well-being. Medical specialists can have an important role by timely referring their patients to their PCPs. Moreover, the disease label 'chronic' can possibly assist patients to live their life in the best possible way.

Comorbidities, Rather Than Older Age, Are Strongly Associated With Higher Utilization of Healthcare in Colorectal Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors generally have a higher healthcare utilization (HCU) than the general population due to cancer burden. However, it is unclear which factors are associated with this increased uptake. Our study aimed to (1) compare CRC-related and non-CRC visits to general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists (MSs) by comorbidities, and (2) assess whether HCU differs by demographic, clinical, and psychological factors.

METHODS

We used data from a German population-based cohort of 1,718 survivors of stage I-III CRC diagnosed in 2003 through 2010 who provided information on HCU at 5-year follow-up. Multivariable linear regression was used to calculate least-square means of CRC-related and non-CRC HCU according to the Charlson comorbidity index and comorbidity cluster, adjusting for relevant demographic, clinical, and psychological characteristics.

RESULTS

A higher comorbidity level was associated with more CRC-related MS visits and non-CRC GP visits. In addition to being strongly associated with non-CRC GP visits, comorbidity clusters were associated with CRC-related GP and MS visits, but their association varied by specific cardiometabolic comorbidities. HCU was less dependent on prognostic factors for CRC, such as age and tumor stage, but was strongly associated with disease recurrence, depression, and emotional functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidities, rather than age or tumor stage, were related to HCU, suggesting that CRC survivors use healthcare mainly for reasons other than cancer 5 years postdiagnosis. Improved communication between primary and tertiary healthcare providers could enhance the medical care of cancer survivors with complex health needs and thereby also reduce healthcare costs.

Quality of diabetes care in cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Overlooking other conditions during cancer could undermine gains associated with early detection and improved cancer treatment. We conducted a systematic review on the quality of diabetes care in cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of Medline and Embase, from 1996 to present, were conducted to identify studies on the quality of diabetes care in patients diagnosed with cancer.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: longitudinal or cross-sectional observational study; population consisted of diabetes patients; exposure consisted of cancer of any type and outcomes consisted of diabetes quality of care indicators, including healthcare visits, monitoring and testing, control of biologic parameters, or use of diabetes and other related medications.

DATA EXTRACTION

Structured data collection forms were developed to extract information on the study design and four types of quality indicators: physician visits, exams or diabetes education (collectively 'healthcare visits'); monitoring and testing; control of biologic parameters; and medication use and adherence.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

There were 15 studies from five countries. There was no consistent evidence that cancer was associated with fewer healthcare visits, lower monitoring and testing of biologic parameters or poorer control of biologic parameters, including glucose. However, the weight of the evidence suggests cancer was associated with lower adherence to diabetes medications and other medications, such as anti-hypertensives and cholesterol-lowering agents.

CONCLUSION

Evidence indicates cancer is associated with poorer adherence to diabetes and other medications. Further primary research could clarify cancer's impact on other diabetes quality indicators.