skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Determinants of Patient Satisfaction During Receipt of Radiation Therapy

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the correlations and relative contributions of components of a radiation oncology-specific patient satisfaction survey to their overall satisfaction scores. Methods and Materials: From September 2006 through August 2012, we prospectively collected data from 8069 patients receiving radiation treatments with a 26-question survey. Each question was rated on a 10-point Likert scale. We analyzed the correlation between scores for each question and the overall satisfaction question. We also dichotomized the scores to reflect satisfaction versus dissatisfaction and used logistic regression to assess the relationship between items in 4 domains (the patient–provider relationship, access and environmental issues, wait times, and educational information) and overall satisfaction. Results: Scores on all questions correlated with overall patient satisfaction scores (P<.0001). Satisfaction with patient–provider relationships had the greatest influence on overall satisfaction (R{sup 2}=0.4219), followed by wait times (R{sup 2}=0.4000), access/environment (R{sup 2}=0.3837), and patient education (R{sup 2}=0.3700). The specific variables with the greatest effect on patient satisfaction were the care provided by radiation therapists (odds ratio 1.91) and pain management (odds ratio 1.29). Conclusions: We found that patients' judgment of provider relationships in an outpatient radiation oncology setting were the greatest contributors to their overall satisfaction ratings. Other measures typically associated withmore » patient satisfaction (phone access, scheduling, and ease of the check-in process) correlated less strongly with overall satisfaction. These findings may be useful for other practices preparing to assess patient ratings of quality of care.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22267866
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 87; Journal Issue: 1; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2013 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ATTITUDES; BEHAVIOR; PATIENTS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Famiglietti, Robin M., E-mail: rfamigli@mdanderson.org, Neal, Emily C., Edwards, Timothy J., Allen, Pamela K., and Buchholz, Thomas A. Determinants of Patient Satisfaction During Receipt of Radiation Therapy. United States: N. p., 2013. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.05.020.
Famiglietti, Robin M., E-mail: rfamigli@mdanderson.org, Neal, Emily C., Edwards, Timothy J., Allen, Pamela K., & Buchholz, Thomas A. Determinants of Patient Satisfaction During Receipt of Radiation Therapy. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.05.020.
Famiglietti, Robin M., E-mail: rfamigli@mdanderson.org, Neal, Emily C., Edwards, Timothy J., Allen, Pamela K., and Buchholz, Thomas A. Sun . "Determinants of Patient Satisfaction During Receipt of Radiation Therapy". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.05.020.
@article{osti_22267866,
title = {Determinants of Patient Satisfaction During Receipt of Radiation Therapy},
author = {Famiglietti, Robin M., E-mail: rfamigli@mdanderson.org and Neal, Emily C. and Edwards, Timothy J. and Allen, Pamela K. and Buchholz, Thomas A.},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To evaluate the correlations and relative contributions of components of a radiation oncology-specific patient satisfaction survey to their overall satisfaction scores. Methods and Materials: From September 2006 through August 2012, we prospectively collected data from 8069 patients receiving radiation treatments with a 26-question survey. Each question was rated on a 10-point Likert scale. We analyzed the correlation between scores for each question and the overall satisfaction question. We also dichotomized the scores to reflect satisfaction versus dissatisfaction and used logistic regression to assess the relationship between items in 4 domains (the patient–provider relationship, access and environmental issues, wait times, and educational information) and overall satisfaction. Results: Scores on all questions correlated with overall patient satisfaction scores (P<.0001). Satisfaction with patient–provider relationships had the greatest influence on overall satisfaction (R{sup 2}=0.4219), followed by wait times (R{sup 2}=0.4000), access/environment (R{sup 2}=0.3837), and patient education (R{sup 2}=0.3700). The specific variables with the greatest effect on patient satisfaction were the care provided by radiation therapists (odds ratio 1.91) and pain management (odds ratio 1.29). Conclusions: We found that patients' judgment of provider relationships in an outpatient radiation oncology setting were the greatest contributors to their overall satisfaction ratings. Other measures typically associated with patient satisfaction (phone access, scheduling, and ease of the check-in process) correlated less strongly with overall satisfaction. These findings may be useful for other practices preparing to assess patient ratings of quality of care.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2013.05.020},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 1,
volume = 87,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2013},
month = {Sun Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2013}
}
  • Purpose: Late toxicities and cosmetic analyses of patients treated with accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) on RTOG 0319 are presented. Methods and Materials: Patients with stages I to II breast cancer ≤3 cm, negative margins, and ≤3 positive nodes were eligible. Patients received three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3D-CRT; 38.5 Gy in 10 fractions twice daily over 5 days). Toxicity and cosmesis were assessed by the patient (P), the radiation oncologist (RO), and the surgical oncologist (SO) at 3, 6, and 12 months from the completion of treatment and then annually. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adversemore » Events, version 3.0, was used to grade toxicity. Results: Fifty-two patients were evaluable. Median follow-up was 5.3 years (range, 1.7-6.4 years). Eighty-two percent of patients rated their cosmesis as good/excellent at 1 year, with rates of 64% at 3 years. At 3 years, 31 patients were satisfied with the treatment, 5 were not satisfied but would choose 3D-CRT again, and none would choose standard radiation therapy. The worst adverse event (AE) per patient reported as definitely, probably, or possibly related to radiation therapy was 36.5% grade 1, 50% grade 2, and 5.8% grade 3 events. Grade 3 AEs were all skin or musculoskeletal-related. Treatment-related factors were evaluated to potentially establish an association with observed toxicity. Surgical bed volume, target volume, the number of beams used, and the use of bolus were not associated with late cosmesis. Conclusions: Most patients enrolled in RTOG 0319 were satisfied with their treatment, and all would choose to have the 3D-CRT APBI again.« less
  • Purpose: Hippocampus is one of the important organs which controls emotions, behaviors, movements the memorizing and learning ability. In the conventional head & neck therapy position, it is difficult to perform the hippocampal-sparing brain radiation therapy. The purpose of this study is to investigate optimal head angle which can save the hippocampal-sparing and organ at risk (OAR) in conformal radiation therapy (CRT), Intensity modulation radiation therapy (IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). Methods: Three types of radiation treatment plans, CRT, IMRT and Tomotherapy plans, were performed for 10 brain tumor patients. The image fusion between CT and MRI data were usedmore » in the contour due to the limited delineation of the target and OAR in the CT scan. The optimal condition plan was determined by comparing the dosimetric performance of the each plan with the use of various parameters which include three different techniques (CRT, IMRT, HT) and 4 angle (0, 15, 30, 40 degree). The each treatment plans of three different techniques were compared with the following parameters: conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage, dose in the OARs, monitor units (MU), beam on time and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). Results: HI, CI and target coverage was most excellent in head angle 30 degree among all angle. When compared by modality, target coverage and CI showed good results in IMRT and TOMO than compared to the CRT. HI at the head angle 0 degrees is 1.137±0.17 (CRT), 1.085±0.09 (IMRT) and 1.077±0.06 (HT). HI at the head angle 30 degrees is 1.056±0.08 (CRT), 1.020±0.05 (IMRT) and 1.022±0.07 (HT). Conclusion: The results of our study show that when head angle tilted at 30 degree, target coverage, HI, CI were improved, and the dose delivered to OAR was reduced compared with conventional supine position in brain radiation therapy. This work was supported by the Radiation Technology R&D program (No. 2013M2A2A7043498) and the Mid-career Researcher Program (2014R1A2A1A10050270) through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT&Future Planning.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the role of 2D kilovoltage (kV) imaging to complement cone beam CT (CBCT) imaging in a shift threshold based image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) strategy for conventional lung radiotherapy. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted by analyzing IGRT couch shift trends for 15 patients that received lung radiation therapy to evaluate the benefit of performing orthogonal kV imaging prior to CBCT imaging. Herein, a shift threshold based IGRT protocol was applied, which would mandate additional CBCT verification if the applied patient shifts exceeded 3 mm to avoid intraobserver variability in CBCT registration and to confirm table shifts.more » For each patient, two IGRT strategies: kV + CBCT and CBCT alone, were compared and the recorded patient shifts were categorized into whether additional CBCT acquisition would have been mandated or not. The effectiveness of either strategy was gauged by the likelihood of needing additional CBCT imaging for accurate patient set-up. Results: The use of CBCT alone was 6 times more likely to require an additional CBCT than KV+CBCT, for a 3 mm shift threshold (88% vs 14%). The likelihood of additional CBCT verification generally increased with lower shift thresholds, and was significantly lower when kV+CBCT was used (7% with 5 mm shift threshold, 36% with 2 mm threshold), than with CBCT alone (61% with 5 mm shift threshold, 97% with 2 mm threshold). With CBCT alone, treatment time increased by 2.2 min and dose increased by 1.9 cGy per fraction on average due to additional CBCT with a 3mm shift threshold. Conclusion: The benefit of kV imaging to screen for gross misalignments led to more accurate CBCT based patient localization compared with using CBCT alone. The subsequently reduced need for additional CBCT verification will minimize treatment time and result in less overall patient imaging dose.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate, in the setting of breast cancer, the accuracy of registry radiation therapy (RT) coding compared with the gold standard of Medicare claims. Methods and Materials: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data, we identified 73,077 patients aged ≥66 years diagnosed with breast cancer in the period 2001-2007. Underascertainment (1 - sensitivity), sensitivity, specificity, κ, and χ{sup 2} were calculated for RT receipt determined by registry data versus claims. Multivariate logistic regression characterized patient, treatment, and geographic factors associated with underascertainment of RT. Findings in the SEER–Medicare registries were compared with three non-SEER registries (Florida, New York,more » and Texas). Results: In the SEER–Medicare registries, 41.6% (n=30,386) of patients received RT according to registry coding, versus 49.3% (n=36,047) according to Medicare claims (P<.001). Underascertainment of RT was more likely if patients resided in a newer SEER registry (odds ratio [OR] 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.60-1.80; P<.001), rural county (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21-1.48; P<.001), or if RT was delayed (OR 1.006/day, 95% CI 1.006-1.007; P<.001). Underascertainment of RT receipt in SEER registries was 18.7% (95% CI 18.6-18.8%), compared with 44.3% (95% CI 44.0-44.5%) in non-SEER registries. Conclusions: Population-based tumor registries are highly variable in ascertainment of RT receipt and should be augmented with other data sources when evaluating quality of breast cancer care. Future work should identify opportunities for the radiation oncology community to partner with registries to improve accuracy of treatment data.« less