The association between patients’ perceived continuity of care and beliefs about oral anticancer treatment
- 32 Downloads
To explore factors associated with necessity beliefs and concerns among patients receiving oral anticancer therapy (OACT) and, specifically, to examine the relationship between continuity of care (COC) and patients’ beliefs about OACT.
A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients from four oncology centers receiving OACT (either targeted, hormonal, or chemotherapy). Two months after OACT initiation, patients were asked to participate in a face-to-face or telephone survey. The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire was used to examine patients’ perceptions of their personal necessity for OACT and concerns about potential adverse effects. The Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire was used to assess patients’ perceived COC. Data on clinical characteristics were collected from medical records.
Participants’ beliefs about OACT necessity (n = 91) were found to be associated with COC within the oncology team, and with COC between the oncology specialist and the primary care physicians (β = 0.27, p = 0.003; β = 0.22, p = 0.02, respectively), beyond age, depression, and cancer type (ΔR2 = 0.14, p < 0.001). Additionally, the difference between participants’ beliefs about OACT necessity and their OACT-related concerns was associated with COC within the oncology team (β = 0.30, p = 0.001), beyond age, income, family status, and cancer type (ΔR2 = 0.09, p = 0.001).
This study shows that cancer patients’ perceptions about the COC between care providers are related to their beliefs about OACT necessity, thus providing evidence for the importance of health care delivery approaches that support COC within the oncology team and between the oncology specialist and the primary care physician.
KeywordsOral anticancer treatment Continuity of care Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire
The authors express their gratitude to patients who participated in this study and made this research possible.
This study was supported by grants from the Israel Cancer Association (grant no. (20140089, the National Institute for Health Policy Research (IL) (grant no. (2015/84, and Maccabi Institute for Health Services Research (grant no.28/2016).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.
- 5.Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker DW (2007) Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA 297(8):831–841. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.8.831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Verbrugghe M, Verhaeghe S, Lauwaert K, Beeckman D, Van Hecke A (2013) Determinants and associated factors influencing medication adherence and persistence to oral anticancer drugs: a systematic review. Cancer Treatment Rev 39(6):610–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Horne R, Chapman SC, Parham R, Freemantle N, Forbes A, Cooper V (2013) Understanding patients’ adherence-related beliefs about medicines prescribed for long-term conditions: a meta-analytic review of the necessity-concerns framework. PLoS One 8(12):e80633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Weingart SN, Brown E, Bach PB, Eng K, Johnson SA, Kuzel TM, Langbaum TS, Leedy RD, Muller RJ, Newcomer LN, O’Brien S, Reinke D, Rubino M, Saltz L, Walters RS (2008) NCCN task force report: oral chemotherapy. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 6(Suppl 3):S1–S14Google Scholar
- 27.Channa Y, Shabo V (2012) Israel household expenditure survey and income survey 2010. Central Bureau of Statistics.http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/statistical/home10_e.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2018
- 28.Geulayov G, Jungerman T, Moses S, Friedman N, Miron R, Gross R (2009) Assessing the psychometric properties of the mood module of the Patient Health Questionnaire in primary care in Israel. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 46:36Google Scholar
- 31.Uijen AA, Schellevis FG, van den Bosch WJ, Mokkink HG, van Weel C, Schers HJ (2011) Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire: development and testing of a questionnaire that measures continuity of care. J Clin Epidemiol 64(12):1391–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Cohen Castel O, Dagan E, Keinan-Boker L, Shadmi E (2018) Reliability and validity of the Hebrew version of the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire for measuring patients’ perceived continuity of care in oral anticancer therapy. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 27(6):e12913. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Komatsu H, Nakayama K, Togari T, Suzuki K, Hayashi N, Murakami Y, Iioka Y, Osaka W, Yagasaki K, Nakamura S, Neumann J, Ueno NT (2011) Information sharing and case conference among the multidisciplinary team improve patients’ perceptions of care. Open Nurs J 5:79–85. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874434601105010079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Timmers L, Boons CC, Mangnus D, Van de Ven PM, Van den Berg PH, Beeker A, Swart EL, Honeywell RJ, Peters GJ, Boven E, Hugtenburg JG (2016) Adherence and patients’ experiences with the use of capecitabine in daily practice. Front Pharmacol 7:310. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar