Satisfaction with information provided to Danish cancer patients: validation and survey results

Lone Ross, Morten Aagaard Petersen, Anna Thit Johnsen, Louise Hyldborg Lundstrøm, Mogens Groenvold

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To validate five items (CPWQ-inf) regarding satisfaction with information provided to cancer patients from health care staff, assess the prevalence of dissatisfaction with this information, and identify factors predicting dissatisfaction.

METHODS: The questionnaire was validated by patient-observer agreement and cognitive interviews. The prevalence of dissatisfaction was assessed in a cross-sectional sample of all cancer patients in contact with hospitals during the past year in three Danish counties.

RESULTS: The validation showed that the CPWQ performed well. Between 3 and 23% of the 1490 participating patients were dissatisfied with each of the measured aspects of information. The highest level of dissatisfaction was reported regarding the guidance, support and help provided when the diagnosis was given. Younger patients were consistently more dissatisfied than older patients.

CONCLUSIONS: The brief CPWQ performs well for survey purposes. The survey depicts the heterogeneous patient population encountered by hospital staff and showed that younger patients probably had higher expectations or a higher need for information and that those with more severe diagnoses/prognoses require extra care in providing information.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Four brief questions can efficiently assess information needs. With increasing demands for information, a wide range of innovative initiatives is needed.

Original languageEnglish
JournalPatient Education and Counseling
Volume93
Issue number2
Pages (from-to)239-47
Number of pages9
ISSN0738-3991
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Satisfaction with information provided to Danish cancer patients: validation and survey results'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this