Is the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey representative? A comparative analysis with the National Lung Cancer Audit

被引:8
|
作者
Nartey, Yvonne [1 ]
Stewart, Iain [2 ]
Khakwani, Aamir [1 ]
Beattie, Vanessa [3 ]
Wilcock, Andrew [4 ,5 ]
Woolhouse, Ian [6 ]
Beckett, Paul [7 ]
Hubbard, Richard B. [1 ]
Tata, Laila J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nottingham, Nottingham City Hosp, Div Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Clin Sci Bldg, Nottingham NG5 1PB, England
[2] Univ Nottingham, Nottingham City Hosp, Div Resp Med, Clin Sci Bldg, Nottingham NG5 1PB, England
[3] Aintree Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Longmoor Lane, Liverpool L9 7AL, Merseyside, England
[4] Nottingham Univ Hosp, Hayward House, Nottingham, England
[5] Univ Nottingham, Nottingham, England
[6] Queen Elizabeth Hosp Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2GW, W Midlands, England
[7] Univ Hosp Derby & Burton NHS Fdn Trust, Uttoxeter Rd, Derby DE22 3NE, England
关键词
Patient experience; Patient view; CPES; Lung cancer; England; EUROPE; 1999-2007; CARE; QUALITY; SURVIVAL; PATTERNS; NONRESPONSE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.11.023
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objectives: Healthcare systems increasingly recognise the importance of service users' perspectives for improving care organisation and delivery. The English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) is carried out annually, however, its representativeness within cancer types is unknown. We have explored if the CPES results are representative of people with lung cancer. Materials and methods: We linked cancer registry data across multiple sources to assess how CPES represents sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the National Lung Cancer Audit population, accounting for post-sampling mortality bias. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare people included and not included in CPES. Results: Of 240,375 people diagnosed (2009-2015), 15,967 (7 %) were included in CPES. Gender and ethnicity were reasonably represented, as were sociodemographic and clinical groupings, although more received anti-cancer treatment (96 % of CPES respondents vs. 56 % of patients nationally; adjusted odds ratio = 10.3, 95 confidence interval 9.4-11.2 for any anti-cancer treatment) with chemotherapy most over-represented, followed by surgery and then radiotherapy. CPES under-represented older, more socioeconomically deprived, and certain clinical groups, including those with worse performance status, multiple comorbidities, and diagnosis via emergency presentation. Conclusion: CPES includes patients across the sociodemographic and clinical spectrum indicating its value for research and service planning. Unbalanced representation of incident lung cancer cases is a limitation that must be considered in context of using CPES findings to implement service changes. Although half the national lung cancer population who received no anti-cancer treatment do not have their experiences represented, the strength of this dataset is in providing detailed comparisons of patient experiences across different treatment groups.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 34
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Lung Cancer Patient Experience Survey from Twelfth Central and Eastern Europe Countries
    Sajnic, A.
    Karabatic, S.
    Milicevic, J.
    Belina, I.
    Dodlek, N.
    Jakopovic, M.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2022, 17 (09) : S132 - S132
  • [42] Risk factors and survival outcome for non-elective referral in non-small cell lung cancer patients - Analysis based on the National Lung Cancer Audit
    Beckett, P.
    Tata, L. J.
    Hubbard, R. B.
    LUNG CANCER, 2014, 83 (03) : 396 - 400
  • [43] Quality Gaps and Comparative Effectiveness in Lung Cancer Staging and Diagnosis
    Ost, David E.
    Niu, Jiangong
    Zhao, Hui
    Grosu, Horiana B.
    Giordano, Sharon H.
    CHEST, 2020, 157 (05) : 1322 - 1345
  • [44] Variation in number of general practitioner consultations before hospital referral for cancer: findings from the 2010 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey in England
    Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
    Neal, Richard D.
    Barbiere, Josephine M.
    Rubin, Gregory P.
    Abel, Gary A.
    LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2012, 13 (04) : 353 - 365
  • [45] Introducing magnetic resonance imaging into the lung cancer radiotherapy workflow - An assessment of patient experience
    Bellhouse, S.
    Brown, S.
    Dubec, M.
    Taylor, S.
    Hales, R.
    Whiteside, L.
    Yorke, J.
    Faivre-Finn, C.
    RADIOGRAPHY, 2021, 27 (01) : 14 - 23
  • [46] Treatment Timing in Small Cell Lung Cancer, a National Cancer Database Analysis
    Bhandari, Shruti
    Kumar, Rohit
    Pham, Danh
    Gaskins, Jeremy
    Kloecker, Goetz
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2020, 43 (05): : 362 - 365
  • [47] Exploring variations in lung cancer care across the UK - the 'story so far' for the National Lung Cancer Audit
    Beckett, P.
    Woolhouse, I.
    Stanley, R.
    Peake, M. D.
    CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2012, 12 (01) : 14 - 18
  • [48] Improving the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team meetings on skin cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Research UK survey responses
    Ali, Stephen R.
    Dobbs, Thomas D.
    Jovic, Matthew
    Hutchings, Hayley A.
    Whitaker, Iain S.
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2023, 82 : 141 - 151
  • [49] The National Prostate Cancer Audit - Introducing a New Generation of Cancer Audit
    Aggarwal, A.
    Cathcart, P.
    Payne, H.
    Neal, D.
    Rashbass, J.
    Nossiter, J.
    van der Meulen, J.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 26 (02) : 90 - 93
  • [50] Experience and Care Pathway of Patients with Lung Cancer: An Online International Survey
    Frank, Pauline
    Laurent, Julie
    Dallas, Lorraine
    Varriale, Pasquale
    Ciupek, Andrew
    ONCOLOGY AND THERAPY, 2025, 13 (01) : 145 - 164