An exploratory cross-sectional study of the effects of ongoing relationships with accompanying patients on cancer care experience, self-efficacy, and psychological distress.

BACKGROUND: Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal in Canada introduced accompanying patients (APs) into the breast cancer care trajectory. APs are patients who have been treated for breast cancer and have been integrated into the clinical team to expand the services offered to people affected by cancer. This study describes the profiles of the people who received the support and explores whether one-offs vs ongoing encounters with APs influence their experience of care, on self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and on their level of psychological distress. METHODS: An exploratory cross-sectional study was carried out among patients to compare patients who had one encounter with an AP (G1) with those who had had several encounters (G2). Five questionnaires were administered on socio-demographic characteristics, care pathway, evaluation of the support experience, self-efficacy in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. Logbooks, completed by the APs, determined the number of encounters. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the associations between the number of encounters, patient characteristics, care pathway, number of topics discussed, self-efficacy measures in coping with cancer, and level of psychological distress. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and December 2021, 60% of 535 patients who were offered support from an AP accepted. Of these, one hundred and twenty-four patients participated in the study. The study aimed to recruit a minimum of 70 patients with the expectation of obtaining at least 50 participants, assuming a response rate of 70%. There were no differences between G1 and G2 in terms of sociodemographic data and care pathways. Statistical differences were found between G1 and G2 for impacts on and the return to daily life (p = 0.000), the return to the work and impacts on professional life (p = 0.044), announcement of a diagnosis to family and friends (p = 0.033), and strategies for living with treatment under the best conditions (p = 0.000). Significant differences were found on the topics of cancer (p = 0.000), genetic testing (p = 0.023), therapeutic options (p = 0.000), fatigue following treatment (p = 0.005), pain and discomfort after treatment or surgery (p = 0.000), potential emotions and their management (p = 0.000) and the decision-making processes (p = 0.011). A significant relationship was found between the two groups for patients' ability to cope with cancer (p = 0.038), and their level of psychological distress at different stages of the care pathway (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows differences between one-time and ongoing support for cancer patients. It highlights the potential for APs to help patients develop self-efficacy and cope with the challenges of cancer treatment.

Accompanying patients in clinical oncology teams: Reported activities and perceived effects.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2018, four establishments in Quebec, Canada, have decided to implement the PAROLE-Onco programme, which introduced accompanying patients (APs) in healthcare teams to improve the experience of cancer patients. APs are patient advisors who have had a cancer treatment experience and who conduct consultations to complement the service offered by providing emotional, informational and educational support to patients undergoing treatments (e.g., radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery), mostly for breast cancer. We aimed to explore the evolution of APs' perspectives regarding their activities within the clinical oncology teams as well as the perceived effects of their intervention with patients, the clinical team and themselves. METHODS: A qualitative study based on semistructured interviews and focus groups was conducted with APs at the beginning of their intervention (T1) and 2 years afterwards (T2). The themes discussed were APs' activities and the perceived effects of their interventions on themselves, on the patients and on the clinical team. RESULTS: In total, 20 APs were interviewed. In T2, APs' activities shifted from listening and sharing experiences to empowering patients by helping them become partners in their care and felt generally more integrated into the clinical team. APs help patients feel understood and supported, alleviate stress and become partners in the care they receive. They also alleviate the clinical team's workload by offering a complementary service through emotional support, which, according to them, helps patients feel calmer and more prepared for their appointments with healthcare professionals. They communicate additional information about their patients' health journey, which makes the appointment more efficient for healthcare professionals. When APs accompany patients, they feel as if they can make a difference in patients' lives. Their activities are perceived by some as an opportunity to give back but also as a way of giving meaning to their own experience, in turn serving as a learning experience. CONCLUSION: By mobilizing their experiential knowledge, APs provide emotional, informational, cognitive and navigational support, which allows patients to be more empowered in their care and which complements professionals' scientific knowledge, thereby helping to refine their sensitivity to the patients' experiences. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient-researchers have contributed to the study design, the conduct of the study, the data analysis and interpretation, as well as in the preparation and writing of this manuscript.

Perception and satisfaction of patients after telemedicine urology consultations: A matched analysis with physicians' perspective.

INTRODUCTION: During the first regional COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, we conducted a study aimed at evaluating completeness of telemedicine consultation in urology. Of 1679 consultations, 67% were considered completely managed by phone. The aim of the present study was to assess patients' experience and satisfaction with telemedicine and to compare them with urologists' perceptions about quality and completeness of the telemedicine consultation. METHODS: We contacted a randomly selected sample of patients (n=356) from our previous study to enquire about their experience. We used a home patient experience questionnaire, inspired by the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQOHC) and the Consumer Assessment Health Profile Survey (CAHPS). RESULTS: Of 356 patients contacted, 315 agreed to complete the questionnaire. Urological consultations were for non-oncological (104), oncological (121), cancer suspicion (41), and pediatric (49) indications. Mean patient satisfaction score after telemedicine consultation was 8.8/10 (median 9/10) and 86.3% of patients rated the quality of the consultation as either excellent (54.6%) or very good (31.7%). Consultations regarding cancer suspicion had the lowest score (8.3/10). Overall, 46.7% of all patients would have preferred an in-person visit outside of the pandemic situation. Among patients whose consultations were rated suboptimal by urologists, almost a third more (31.2%) would have preferred an in-person visit (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high reported patient satisfaction rates with telemedicine, it is noteworthy that nearly half of the patients would have preferred an in-person visit. Post-pandemic, it will be important to incorporate telemedicine as an alternative, while retaining and offering in-person visits.