Feldman-Stewart D, Capirci C, Brundage M D
Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Support Care Cancer. 2003 Jul;11(7):472-80. doi: 10.1007/s00520-003-0462-8. Epub 2003 Apr 10.
To compare information priorities of Canadian to those of Italian health-care professionals in the context of early-stage prostate cancer.
Oncologists (radiation and medical), nurses, and radiation-therapy technologists in each country were surveyed. Respondents rated the importance of addressing each of 78 questions with a case-scenario patient using either three (Italian survey) or four (Canadian survey) categories; the most important category was defined as "essential" in both countries. At least 67% identical responses on a specific question was considered "agreement."
Within each country, questions rated essential by most group members were similar across professions (all pairwise group correlations r>or=0.77, p<0.01); there was much less agreement within each profession between the countries (all pairwise comparisons of the amount of accounted-for variance F(max) >or=1.59, p<0.05). Amongst oncologists, Canadians agreed that 11 questions were essential versus two by the Italians; the Canadians disagreed on the essential nature of 29 questions versus nine by the Italians. More importantly, there was large variation within each group in both countries: individual Canadian oncologists identified from five to 69 questions essential and Italians from zero to 68; each of 75 questions was considered essential by some Canadian oncologists and each of all 78 by some Italians. Similar patterns were evident in the other professions.
Within each profession, the Italians agreed that fewer questions were essential to address and disagreed on the essential nature of fewer questions than their Canadian counterparts. There was, however, marked individual variation in priorities within each profession in each country. Thus, information provided to individual patients in both countries likely differs as a function of the particular professionals seen, and seeing two professionals (from the same or different professions) likely results in confusion for patients.
在早期前列腺癌的背景下,比较加拿大和意大利医疗保健专业人员的信息优先级。
对每个国家的肿瘤学家(放射肿瘤学家和医学肿瘤学家)、护士和放射治疗技术人员进行了调查。受访者使用三个类别(意大利调查)或四个类别(加拿大调查)对一个病例情景患者的78个问题的重要性进行评分;在两个国家中,最重要的类别都被定义为“必不可少”。在特定问题上至少67%的相同回答被视为“达成一致”。
在每个国家内部,大多数小组成员认为必不可少的问题在不同专业之间是相似的(所有成对小组相关性r≥0.77,p<0.01);而在不同国家的同一专业内部达成的一致意见要少得多(所有成对比较的方差解释量F(max)≥1.59,p<0.05)。在肿瘤学家中,加拿大人认为11个问题必不可少,而意大利人认为是2个;加拿大人不同意29个问题的必要性,而意大利人不同意9个。更重要的是,两个国家的每个小组内部都存在很大差异:个别加拿大肿瘤学家认为5到69个问题必不可少,而意大利人认为0到68个;75个问题中的每一个都被一些加拿大肿瘤学家认为必不可少,而所有78个问题中的每一个都被一些意大利人认为必不可少。其他专业也有类似的模式。
在每个专业内部,意大利人认为需要解决的必不可少的问题比加拿大人少,并且在必不可少的问题的本质上存在分歧的问题也比加拿大人少。然而,每个国家的每个专业内部在优先级上都存在明显的个体差异。因此,在这两个国家向个体患者提供的信息可能因所咨询的特定专业人员而有所不同,并且咨询两名专业人员(来自相同或不同专业)可能会给患者带来困惑。