Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e060899, 2022 04 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1854362

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04725565.


Subject(s)
Counselors , Neoplasms , Genetic Counseling/methods , Genetic Testing/methods , Humans , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
2.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 18(1): e60-e71, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1403282

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Provider well-being has become the fourth pillar of the quadruple aim for providing quality care. Exacerbated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, provider well-being has become a critical issue for health care systems worldwide. We describe the prevalence and key system-level drivers of burnout in oncologists in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey study conducted in November-December 2019 of practicing cancer care physicians (surgical, medical, radiation, gynecologic oncology, and hematology) in Ontario, Canada. Ontario is Canada's largest province (with a population of 14.5 million), and has a single-payer publicly funded cancer system. The primary outcome was burnout experience assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 418 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate was 44% among confirmed oncologists). Seventy-three percent (n = 264 of 362) of oncologists had symptoms of burnout (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization scores). Significant drivers of burnout identified in multivariable regression modeling included working in a hectic or chaotic atmosphere (odds ratio [OR] = 15.5; 95% CI, 3.4 to 71.5; P < .001), feeling unappreciated on the job (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), reporting poor or marginal control over workload (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), and not being comfortable talking to peers about workplace stress (OR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.9; P < .001). Older age (≥ 56 years) was associated with lower odds of burnout (OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nearly three quarters of participants met predefined standardized criteria for burnout. This number is striking, given the known impact of burnout on provider mental health, patient safety, and quality of care, and suggests Oncologists in Ontario may be a vulnerable group that warrants attention. Health care changes being driven by the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity to rebuild new systems that address drivers of burnout. Creating richer peer-to-peer and leadership engagement opportunities among early- to mid-career individuals may be a worthwhile organizational strategy.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Physicians , Aged , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Ontario/epidemiology , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Workplace
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL