Australian journal of general practice · 2024
Discussions with patients about referral pathways and costs in the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer in Victoria, Australia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Bergin Rebecca J, Yao-Dong Yu Angus, White Victoria, Emery Jon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival in Australia differs by health insurance status, but why this occurs is uncertain. There are growing concerns about out-of-pocket healthcare costs. We examined patient experiences of referral pathways to diagnosis and treatment of CRC in Victoria, Australia, and discussions about costs, comparing public, private and mixed healthcare system users.
METHOD: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 16 purposively sampled, English-speaking patients aged ≥40 years with CRC. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Private patients described greater out-of-pocket expenses balanced by greater choice of provider and access. Public patients perceived limited choice in their diagnostic or treatment provider, although some considered switching systems. Patients trusted their general practitioner or specialist for referrals. Discussions about costs did not meet guideline recommendations.
DISCUSSION: There are limited opportunities for informed decision making about public versus private care for cancer diagnosis and treatment, which could contribute to inequalities in outcomes.
METHOD: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 16 purposively sampled, English-speaking patients aged ≥40 years with CRC. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
RESULTS: Private patients described greater out-of-pocket expenses balanced by greater choice of provider and access. Public patients perceived limited choice in their diagnostic or treatment provider, although some considered switching systems. Patients trusted their general practitioner or specialist for referrals. Discussions about costs did not meet guideline recommendations.
DISCUSSION: There are limited opportunities for informed decision making about public versus private care for cancer diagnosis and treatment, which could contribute to inequalities in outcomes.