Patients' experiences with cancer care in Switzerland: Results of a multicentre cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to describe patients' experiences of cancer care in Switzerland and explore the variation of these experiences by type of cancer. METHODS: The Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) study was a cross-sectional, multicentre survey conducted in 2018. Adult patients (n = 7145) with breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, skin or haematological cancer from four large hospitals in French-speaking Switzerland were invited to complete a survey. Logistic regressions were used to assess whether experiences varied according to cancer type, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Of the 3121 persons who returned the survey (44% response rate), 2755 reporting an eligible cancer were included in the analyses. Participants' average score for overall care was 8.5 out of a maximum score of 10. Higher rates of positive experiences were found for nurse consultations (94%), diagnostic tests (85%) and inpatient care (82%). Lower positive responses were reported for support for people with cancer (70%), treatment decisions (66%), diagnosis (65%) and home care (55%). We observed non-systematic differences in experiences of care by cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: This large study identified that cancer patient experiences can be improved in relation to communication, information and supportive care aspects. Improvement efforts should target these areas of care to enhance responsiveness of cancer care.

Computer-assisted textual analysis of free-text comments in the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience surveys are increasingly conducted in cancer care as they provide important results to consider in future development of cancer care and health policymaking. These surveys usually include closed-ended questions (patient-reported experience measures (PREMs)) and space for free-text comments, but published results are mostly based on PREMs. We aimed to identify the underlying themes of patients' experiences as shared in their own words in the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) survey and compare these themes with those assessed with PREMs to investigate how the textual analysis of free-text comments contributes to the understanding of patients' experiences of care. METHODS: SCAPE is a multicenter cross-sectional survey that was conducted between October 2018 and March 2019 in French-speaking parts of Switzerland. Patients were invited to rate their care in 65 closed-ended questions (PREMs) and to add free-text comments regarding their cancer-related experiences at the end of the survey. We conducted computer-assisted textual analysis using the IRaMuTeQ software on the comments provided by 31% (n = 844) of SCAPE survey respondents (n = 2755). RESULTS: We identified five main thematic classes, two of which consisting of a detailed description of 'cancer care pathways'. The remaining three classes were related to 'medical care', 'gratitude and praise', and the way patients lived with cancer ('cancer and me'). Further analysis of this last class showed that patients' comments related to the following themes: 'initial shock', 'loneliness', 'understanding and acceptance', 'cancer repercussions', and 'information and communication'. While closed-ended questions related mainly to factual aspects of experiences of care, free-text comments related primarily to the personal and emotional experiences and consequences of having cancer and receiving care. CONCLUSIONS: A computer-assisted textual analysis of free-text in our patient survey allowed a time-efficient classification of free-text data that provided insights on the personal experience of living with cancer and additional information on patient experiences that had not been collected with the closed-ended questions, underlining the importance of offering space for comments. Such results can be useful to inform questionnaire development, provide feedback to professional teams, and guide patient-centered initiatives to improve the quality and safety of cancer care.

Digital Medication Adherence Support: Could Healthcare Providers Recommend Mobile Health Apps?

Adherence to prescribed medication is suboptimal in 50% of the chronic population, resulting in negative medical and economic outcomes. With the widespread use of mobile phones worldwide, medication adherence apps for mobile phones become promising medication adherence aids thanks to simplicity, user-friendliness, and accessibility for the public. Yet, until today, there is insufficient evidence in favor of using mobile health (mHealth) apps to increase medication adherence. This study aims to develop a methodology for scientific and end-user (patient) mHealth evaluation (a) to identify medication adherence apps search terms, (b) to evaluate identified apps based on scientific criteria, and (c) to report best smartphone apps evaluated by patients. Search terms were identified via literature review and expertise. Firstly, an online questionnaire was developed to identify frequently used search terms by recruited patients. Related medication adherence apps were identified and selected using predefined inclusion criteria. Secondly, identified apps were evaluated thanks to a scientific evaluation method and a created online questionnaire for patient feedback. Recruited patients were invited to test and evaluate the selected apps. Out of 1,833 free-of-charge and 307 paid apps identified, only four free-of-charge and three paid apps remained included in the study after eligibility criteria. None of the selected app reached a high score. Looking at the overall scores, Medisafe (59%), MyTherapy (56%), and Meds on time (44%) received the highest scores in the scientific app evaluation. In the patient evaluation, Dosecast (3.83 out of five points), Medisafe (3.62), and SwissMeds (3.50) received the highest scores. None of the apps in this research has undergone a process for certification, for example, CE marking, through a notified body. Security and data protection aspects of existing apps highly contribute to these low evaluation scores through little information on patient's data processing and storage. This might be corrected through the introduction of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Economic Area (EEA) and more scrutiny through regulatory bodies in the EU/EEA and the USA. None of the applications should be recommended by healthcare providers. In addition, clinical studies with chronic patients are necessary to measure long-term app impacts.