Cancer medicine · 2020
Use of psycho-oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Breidenbach Clara, Roth Rebecca, Ansmann Lena, Wesselmann Simone, Dieng Sebastian, Carl Ernst-Günther, Feick Günter, Oesterle Alisa, Bach Peter, Beyer Burkhard, Borowitz Rainer, Erdmann Jörg, Kunath Frank, Oostdam Simba-Joshua, Tsaur Igor, Zengerling Friedemann, Kowalski Christoph
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often suffer from psychological distress. Psycho-oncological services (POS) have been established in some health care systems in order to address such issues. This study aims to identify patient and center characteristics that elucidate the use of POS by patients in prostate cancer centers (PCCs).
METHODS: Center-reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients' age (OR = 0.98; 95%-CI = 0.96-0.99; P < .001), number of comorbidities (1-2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%-CI = 1.00-1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%-CI = 1.14-1.74; P < .001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%-CI = 0.10-0.34; P < .001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.55; P = .009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%-CI = 0.03-0.10; P < .001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.15; P < .001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%-CI = 1.05-1.62; P = .02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%-CI = 0.01-0.65; P = .02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects - for example, less need following radiotherapy - or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy.
METHODS: Center-reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients' age (OR = 0.98; 95%-CI = 0.96-0.99; P < .001), number of comorbidities (1-2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%-CI = 1.00-1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%-CI = 1.14-1.74; P < .001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%-CI = 0.10-0.34; P < .001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.55; P = .009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%-CI = 0.03-0.10; P < .001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.15; P < .001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%-CI = 1.05-1.62; P = .02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%-CI = 0.01-0.65; P = .02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects - for example, less need following radiotherapy - or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy.