RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A mixed methods study of attitudes on location of gynaecological oncology outpatient care: a patient and healthcare professional questionnaire
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.08.04.23293646
DO 10.1101/2023.08.04.23293646
A1 Newhouse, Rebecca
A1 Cullimore, Victoria
A1 Hotton, Emily
A1 Maxwell, Hilary
A1 Jones, Eleanor
A1 Morrison, Jo
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/08/2023.08.04.23293646.abstract
AB Objective Gynaecological oncology place of care is often based on evolution of services, along historical professional boundaries, rather than user needs or preferences. We aimed to assess existing evidence, gather views of patients in the United Kingdom (UK) on their preferred place of outpatient care for gynaecological malignancies and evaluate alignment with preferences of healthcare professionals.Methods We performed a mixed methods study, including a scoping review, a patient survey, and a health care practitioner questionnaire. We collected quantitative and qualitative data, performing content analysis to determine current practice and impact on patients.Results We performed a mixed methods study, using a scoping review of the literature, patient survey and a healthcare practitioner (HCP) questionnaire, collecting quantitative and qualitative data. No studies were identified in our scoping review. We received responses from 159 patients and 54 gynaecological oncology HCPs. There was a strong preference for a dedicated gynaecological oncology setting (89% somewhat or very happy) (P<0.0001). 53% of patients were somewhat or very unhappy to have care co-located with general obstetrics and gynaecology services. Specifically, two key themes were identified through content analysis of qualitative data from patients: “environment and getting this right is vital”; and “our cancer should be the priority”. HCPs un-der-estimated the strong patient-preference to be seen in dedicated units. Of those who see patients within general obstetrics and gynaecology, only 50% said patients were seen at separate times/locations from obstetric patients.Conclusion This study demonstrates the significant impact of place of care on gynaecological oncology patients, which may be underestimated by HCPs.What is already known on this topicStudies have shown that design of healthcare environment can significantly affect patient care, but have focussed on environmental factors, rather than co-location of services.What this study addsGynaecological oncology patients indicated that co-location of clinics with general obstetrics and gynaecology was psychologically distressing or inappropriate, as they were at a different point in their life journey.Patients have a strong preference for their outpatient care to be provided in a dedicated gynaecologic oncology setting, away from women and children’s services.However, gynaecologic oncology services were frequently co-located with general obstetrics and gynaecology services, reflecting evolution of the subspeciality and service development, rather than patient need.How this study might affect research, practice or policyIt is important to advocate for gynaecological oncology patients, to ensure that healthcare service infrastructure is designed around patient need, not historical professional boundaries.Competing Interest StatementNone of the authors have conflicting interests with this study. HM in Trustee and Chair of GO Girls Charity/1179108. EJ is Trustee and Treasurer of Peaches Womb Cancer Trust. Both are not-for-profit organizations and have received no benefits or payments.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Reseach Ethics Committee confirmed ethics were not required after completion of an IRAS 'Is this research' screening tool as this was a quality improvement project, primarily to inform local care development.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData available on reasonable request from the authors.