Patient Education Practices and Preferences of Interprofessional Radiation Oncology Providers

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Patient understanding of radiotherapy (RT) processes and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. Our objective was to evaluate PE practices and preferences of interprofessional RO providers to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive, accessible, and patient-centered education.

MATERIALS/METHODS

An anonymous 17-item online survey, approved by an ethics review board, was administered to all members of the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) between 10/5/22 to 11/23/22. Respondent demographics, provider practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored key strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. Fisher's exact test compared PE practices by provider role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses.

RESULTS

A total of 123 ROECSG members, including RO attendings (64%), RO trainees (21%), medical physicists (7%), physician assistants/nurses (2%), and radiation therapists (2%), completed the survey (31% response rate). Most practiced in an academic setting (86%) in North America (82%). The most common PE resources used were custom created institution-specific (61%) and electronic health system generated materials (38%). PE was delivered primarily by one-on-one teaching (72%), paper handouts (69%), and organizational websites (21%) (e.g., RTanswers.org). Almost half (41%) reported that PE practices differed based on type of clinical encounter, for example paper handouts for in-person visits and multimedia for virtual visits. The majority (86%) stated that their institution has disease site-specific PE materials, with nearly all having breast cancer materials (91%). Only 58% reported access to non-English PE materials. RO attendings/trainees were more likely than other team members to deliver PE at consultation (98% vs 71%, p = 0.03). PE practices amongst radiation oncologists differed according to the timing along the RT care path (consultation vs simulation vs first fraction, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 89% vs 49% vs 56%, p<0.01 and paper handouts: 69% vs 28% vs 16%, p<0.01. Key PE strategies included incorporating multimedia resources, personalizing delivery, and repetition at multiple timepoints by the interprofessional team. Limited time, inadequate administrative support, and lack of customized resources were identified as challenges in PE delivery.

CONCLUSION

Interprofessional RO providers engage in PE, with most utilizing institution-specific materials. PE practices differ according to the type of clinical encounter and timing in the RT care path. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources based on language, learning styles, and cultural preferences are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.