ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Patient engagement in radiation oncology: a large retrospective study of survey response dynamics.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient satisfaction surveys are pivotal in evaluating healthcare quality and enhancing patient care. Understanding the factors influencing patient engagement with these surveys in radiation oncology can guide improvements in patient-centered care. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from radiation oncology patients at a large multi-site single-institution center from May 2021 to January 2024. We assessed the influence of demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic factors on the likelihood of survey participation using univariate (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression analyses. Factors included age, gender, race, socioeconomic status (SES) via Area Deprivation Index (ADI), language, marital status, smoking, employment, insurance type, mental health disorders (MHD), comorbidity index (CCI), and cancer type. Results: In a comprehensive analysis of 11,859 patients, most were female (57.2%), over 65 years old (60.7%), and primarily insured by Medicare (45.9%). MVA showed that higher socioeconomic disadvantage significantly decreased survey participation (ADI third tertile vs. first tertile OR=0.708, p<0.001), with each unit increase in ADI reducing the odds of completion by 1% (p<0.001). Older adults, and patients with head and neck or genitourinary cancers were significantly more likely to participate, while those with higher comorbidities, MHD, or other minority status were less engaged (p<0.001). Telemedicine encounters also significantly increased participation compared to in-person visits (OR=1.149, p=0.006). Conclusions: Multiple factors including age, race, SES, insurance type, cancer type, health conditions, and modality of healthcare delivery influence patient engagement with satisfaction surveys in radiation oncology. Strategies to enhance patient engagement must consider these diverse influences to ensure comprehensive and inclusive feedback mechanisms in healthcare settings. Tailored interventions to mitigate barriers specific to underrepresented groups are crucial for capturing a broad spectrum of patient experiences and improving the overall quality of patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.