Evidence mapPaperPMID 39309530Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024

Socioeconomic disadvantage and its impact on patient satisfaction at a multi-site radiation oncology center.

Bailey A Loving, Allison J Hazy, Kamran F Salari, Hong Ye, Shaveena Sivapalan, Jacob F Oyeniyi, Elizabeth Rutka, John M Robertson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Bailey A LovingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
Allison J HazyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
Kamran F SalariDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
Hong YeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
Shaveena SivapalanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
Jacob F OyeniyiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
Elizabeth RutkaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
John M RobertsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, 3581 W 13 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the importance of patient satisfaction (PS) on healthcare outcomes, the factors that influence PS in radiation oncology remain unexplored. This study assesses the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) on PS in radiation oncology, using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) as a measure of SES. Methods: This single-institution cross-sectional study used the National Research Council (NRC) PS survey at four radiation oncology sites from 2021 to 2023. SES was measured using ADI data from the Neighborhood Atlas. Univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses were conducted on recommendation scores (0-10 scale, with 9 or higher indicating a likelihood to recommend). Results: In our analysis of 7,501 survey responses, most patients were female (55.3 %), had curative treatment intent (81.5 %), and were diagnosed with breast cancer (30.4 %), with most being follow-up visits (69.0 %). Average scores for state and national ADI were 3.94 and 50.75, respectively. UVA identified factors such as curative intent (OR 1.68, p < 0.001), follow-up visits (OR 1.69, p < 0.001), and breast cancer diagnosis (OR 1.42, p = 0.018) as enhancing the likelihood of recommending the facility or provider. Those with a national ADI above the mean showed lower propensity to recommend the facility (OR 0.81, p = 0.050) or provider (OR 0.71, p = 0.002). MVA confirmed the significance of national ADI on provider recommendations (OR 0.730, p = 0.005) but not facility recommendations (OR 0.832, p = 0.089). Conclusion: Patients facing higher SES disadvantages are less inclined to recommend their healthcare provider. These results highlight the role of SES in PS assessments and advocate for further investigation into how SES impacts PS and patient-provider relationships.

Indexed as

Area Deprivation IndexHealthcare disparitiesPatient satisfactionProvider recommendationsRadiation OncologySocioeconomic status

Identifiers

PMID39309530
PMCPMC11414681

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.