The Effect of Having a Usual Source of Care on Patient-Centered Communication among Persons with Disabilities / 보건행정학회지

Background@#This study examined the effect of having a usual source of care on the degree of patient-centered communication among persons with disability. The role of the usual source of care has been emphasized to improve patient experience, especially for patients with complex health conditions. @*Methods@#This study used the 2017–2018 Korean Health Panel data, and the final study observations were 22,475 (20,806 people without disability and 1,669 people with disability). We applied generalized estimating equation model to show the effect of having a usual source of care on patient-centered communication, and subgroup analysis considering the types and severity of disabilities. @*Results@#Persons who have disabilities, compared with ones without it, significantly had more usual sources of care (32.4% vs. 24.6%). By type of disability, persons with mental (51.4%), internal organ (43.8%), visual (37%), and physical disabilities (31.6%) had more usual sources of care than hearing/speech (26.6%), and developmental disabilities (18.6%). The average score of patient-centered communication was higher among who had a usual sources of care (3.2 vs. 2.7), and the regression analysis showed that having a usual sources of care was positively associated with higher patient-centered communication score (β=0.476, p<0.05). However, the positive effects of usual sources of care was not observed among persons with severe hearing/speech, developmental, and mental disabilities. @*Conclusion@#This study showed that role of patient-centered communication was limited in persons with severe hearing/speech disabilities, developmental, and mental disabilities. The education programs and supports are needed to improve communication skills between medical staff and persons with specific types of disabilities.

Terminal Versus Advanced Cancer: Do the General Population and Health Care Professionals Share a Common Language? / Journal of the Korean Cancer Association, 대한암학회지

PURPOSE: Many end-of-life care studies are based on the assumption that there is a shared definition of language concerning the stage of cancer. However, studies suggest that patients and their families often misperceive patients' cancer stages and prognoses. Discrimination between advanced cancer and terminal cancer is important because the treatment goals are different. In this study, we evaluated the understanding of the definition of advanced versus terminal cancer of the general population and determined associated socio-demographic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2,000 persons from the general population were systematically recruited. We used a clinical vignette of a hypothetical advanced breast cancer patient, but whose cancer was not considered terminal. After presenting the brief history of the case, we asked respondents to choose the correct cancer stage from a choice of early, advanced, terminal stage, and don't know. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed to determine sociodemographic factors associated with the correct response, as defined in terms of medical context. RESULTS: Only 411 respondents (20.6%) chose "advanced," while most respondents (74.5%) chose "terminal stage" as the stage of the hypothetical patient, and a small proportion of respondents chose "early stage" (0.7%) or "don't know" (4.4%). Multinomial logistic regression analysis found no consistent or strong predictor. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of the general population could not differentiate advanced cancer from terminal cancer. Continuous effort is required in order to establish common and shared definitions of the different cancer stages and to increase understanding of cancer staging for the general population.

Treatment Gap in the National Health-screening Program in Korea: Claim-based Follow-up of Statin Use for Sustained Hypercholesterolemia

Participation in a screening program by itself may not improve clinical outcomes. Treatment gaps in the program may limit its full benefit. We evaluated statin prescription rates for subjects with sustained hypercholesterolemia to assess the treatment gaps in the National Health Screening Program (NHSP) in Korea. A retrospective, random cohort was established among National Health Insurance Corporation (NHIC) members. Finally, we examined 465,499 individuals who attended the NHSP from 2003 to 2010 without any history of dyslipidemia, statin prescription, or hospitalization for cardiovascular events until the end of 2002. The subsequent statin prescription rates were identified from the NHIC medical service claim database from 2003 to 2011. Descriptive data and odds ratio from multivariate logistic analyses on statin prescription rates and the corresponding correlations were evaluated. The NHSP detected 114,085 (24.5%) cases of newly diagnosed hypercholesterolemia. However, only 8.6% of these received statin prescription within 6 months of diagnosis. For cases of sustained hypercholesterolemia determined in the next screening visit by the NHSP, the statin prescription rate increased, but only to 12.2%. Statin prescriptions were more common among females, older individuals, and hypertension or diabetes patients. Furthermore, the statin prescription rates had increased over the study period. The NHSP exhibited low statin prescription rate which has been improving. For the NHSP to be effective, it would be worthwhile to decrease the gap between the diagnosis of hypercholesterolemia and the following treatment.