Conocimientos y actitudes de los médicos de Atención Primaria de Andalucía (España) sobre la detección de personas con riesgo elevado de cáncer de mama y colorrectal / Knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia (Spain) on the identification of subjects at high risk of breast and colorectal cancer

OBJETIVOS: Explorar los conocimientos y las actitudes de los médicos de Atención Primaria de Andalucía sobre la detección de personas con riego elevado de cáncer de mama y colorrectal y el cáncer hereditario. MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo transversal a partir de una encuesta de opinión on line. Cuestionario de 24 preguntas. Para el análisis estadístico se emplearon medidas de frecuencia y de asociación. Se estableció un nivel de significación para una p < 0,05. RESULTADOS: Tasa de respuesta del 32%, 224 encuestas válidas, un 56% de varones, edad media ± DE de 46 ± 12 años. Los criterios de riesgo alto de cáncer de mama eran conocidos por el 71,4% [IC 95% 65-76], peor en los hábitats mayores (p = 0,014). Podían solicitar mamografía en tumoraciones y en riesgo moderado o elevado el 86%. Respecto al cáncer colorrectal, conocen los criterios de riesgo el 87,9%. Ante un paciente con criterios de sospecha podían solicitar colonoscopia directamente el 58,2% [IC 95% 49-62] y las zonas más pobladas tenían mayor acceso a la petición de colonoscopias (p < 0,0001). Desconocían la existencia de consultas de consejo genético 133 médicos (59,4% [IC 95% 52-65]). CONCLUSIONES: El programa de cribado de cáncer de mama es bien conocido y el acceso a la mamografía es satisfactorio. La mayoría de los médicos consideran adecuado el seguimiento de las personas con alto riesgo de cáncer colorrectal, aunque la mitad de los encuestados refieren dificultades para solicitar la colonoscopia directamente. Los conocimientos sobre cáncer hereditario son deficitarios y variables según las zonas y hay un desconocimiento generalizado sobre la existencia de unidades de consejo genético y cáncer hereditario

AIMS: To assess the knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia on the identification of subjects with elevated risk for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and hereditary cancers, as well as to detect barriers to accessibility to the screening programs. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted based on an online survey of 24 questions. Data are shown as frequencies, and association tests were statistically used. The level of significance was set at <.05. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 32%, of which 224 were valid, and included 56% men, and a mean age±DE of 46±12 years. Established criteria for high risk breast cancer were already known by 71.4% [95% CI 65-76], being worst in those living in big cities (P <.014). Among general practitioners, 86% were allowed to order mammography in women with lumps or at moderate to high risk for breast cancer. As regards colorectal cancer, 87.9% of general practitioners knew the risk factors. Among general practitioners, 58.2% [95% CI 49-62] were allowed to order a colonoscopy if clinical suspicion was present, especially if they lived in large cities (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The screening program for breast cancer is well-known by general practitioners, and the access to mammography is successful. Most of the general practitioners consider the follow-up program for persons at high risk for colorectal cancer appropriate, although half of those surveyed had some barriers to ordering colonoscopy. Knowledge on hereditary cancer is limited and varies among areas. There is also a general lack of awareness on hereditary cancer and genetic counselling units

[Knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia (Spain) on the identification of subjects at high risk of breast and colorectal cancer]. / Conocimientos y actitudes de los médicos de Atención Primaria de Andalucía (España) sobre la detección de personas con riesgo elevado de cáncer de mama y colorrectal.

AIMS: To assess the knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia on the identification of subjects with elevated risk for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and hereditary cancers, as well as to detect barriers to accessibility to the screening programs. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted based on an online survey of 24 questions. Data are shown as frequencies, and association tests were statistically used. The level of significance was set at<.05. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 32%, of which 224 were valid, and included 56% men, and a mean age±DE of 46±12 years. Established criteria for high risk breast cancer were already known by 71.4% [95% CI 65-76], being worst in those living in big cities (P<.014). Among general practitioners, 86% were allowed to order mammography in women with lumps or at moderate to high risk for breast cancer. As regards colorectal cancer, 87.9% of general practitioners knew the risk factors. Among general practitioners, 58.2% [95% CI 49-62] were allowed to order a colonoscopy if clinical suspicion was present, especially if they lived in large cities (P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The screening program for breast cancer is well-known by general practitioners, and the access to mammography is successful. Most of the general practitioners consider the follow-up program for persons at high risk for colorectal cancer appropriate, although half of those surveyed had some barriers to ordering colonoscopy. Knowledge on hereditary cancer is limited, and varies among areas. There is also a general lack of awareness on hereditary cancer and genetic counselling units.

Cuidados intensivos de pacientes oncológicos en la era del tratamiento multidisciplinar: la perspectiva desde la oncología radioterápica / Intensive care in cancer patients in the age of the multidisciplinary approach of cancer treatments: The radiotherapy perspective

No disponible

Barreras y facilitadores para la implementación de la toma de decisiones compartidas en oncología: percepciones de los pacientes / Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in oncology: patient perceptions

Objetivo. Conocer, desde el punto de vista del paciente oncológico, quién tomó la decisión sobre su tratamiento, así como las principales barreras y facilitadores que permiten la implementación de la toma de decisiones compartidas (TDC). Material y métodos. Estudio transversal y de asociación a partir de un cuestionario autoadministrado a pacientes oncológicos seleccionados mediante muestreo casual en diferentes consultas oncológicas y periodos aleatorios. Ciento ocho pacientes proporcionaron datos analizables. La información recogida fue sobre variables sociodemográficas y clínicas, sobre quién tomó la decisión sobre el tratamiento y el grado de acuerdo o desacuerdo con diferentes barreras y facilitadores. Resultados. El 38,1% de los pacientes afirmó haber tomado la decisión de manera compartida con su médico. Barreras como el tiempo, la dificultad de comprensión, el paternalismo, la falta de comunicación fluida y el disponer de información previa y frecuentemente errónea influyeron en la implicación en la toma de decisiones. Sin embargo, disponer o no de instrumentos suficientes de ayuda a la decisión o el interés del paciente por participar no influyeron. En lo referente a los facilitadores, la motivación del médico, su percepción de mejora y el interés del enfermo tuvieron una influencia positiva. La excepción la constituyó la posibilidad de incentivar económicamente a los médicos. Conclusiones. La nula o escasa participación percibida por los pacientes oncológicos en las decisiones sobre su salud hace necesario introducir mejoras en el modelo de atención sanitaria que permitan superar barreras y promover una actitud más participativa en el paciente (AU)

Objective. To determine, from the point of view of the oncological patient, who made the decision about their treatment, as well as the major barriers and facilitators that enabled Shared Decision Making to be implemented. Material and methods. A cross-sectional, descriptive, sand association study using a self-report questionnaire to selected cancer patients, with casual sampling in different oncology clinics and random time periods. A total of 108 patients provided analysable data. The information was collected on sociodemographic and clinical variables, who made the decision about treatment, and level of agreement or disagreement with various barriers and facilitators. Results. More than one-third (38.1%) of patients claimed to have participated in shared decision making with their doctor. Barriers such as, time, the difficulty of understanding, the paternalism, lack of fluid communication, and having preliminary and often erroneous information influenced the involvement in decision-making. However, to have or not have sufficient tools to aid decision making or the patient's interest to participate had no effect. As regards facilitators, physician motivation, their perception of improvement, and the interest of the patient had a positive influence. The exception was the possibility of financial incentives to doctors. Conclusions. The little, or no participation perceived by cancer patients in decisions about their health makes it necessary to introduce improvements in the health care model to overcome barriers and promote a more participatory attitude in the patient (AU)

[Shared decision making from the perspective of the cancer patient: participatory roles and evaluation of the process]. / La toma de decisiones compartidas desde la perspectiva del paciente oncológico: roles de participación y valoración del proceso.

BACKGROUND: In Spain there is no clear knowledge about the degree to which Shared Decision Making (SDM) is carried out in the normal practice of oncology. Our article analyses the preferred role and the perceived role of oncological patients and measures the SDM process from their perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive transversal study using a self-conducted questionnaire with patients with different types of cancer. To evaluate the role preferred and perceived by the patient we used The Control Preference Scales (CPS) and to measure SDM we used The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). RESULTS: Out of the 132 patients surveyed, only 118 provided analysable data. No evidence was found that sex, age, educational level or type of tumour affected the preferred role or the perceived role. Only 59.3% was in agreement with the role exercised. All of those who preferred a passive role achieved this (21.2%), while out of those who wanted a shared role (78.8%), this was achieved by only 48.39% while the remaining 51.61% played a passive role. None preferred or played an active role. The set of patients evaluated the SDM process with a score of 41.07±5.94, on a scale of 0 to 100, with the highest score of 61.39 ± 13.24 reached by urological patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no evidence that, from the point of view of the oncological patient, the SDM model is being implemented in practice.

La toma de decisiones compartidas desde la perspectiva del paciente oncológico: roles de participación y valoración del proceso / Shared decision making from the perspective of the cancer patient: participatory roles and evaluation of the process

Fundamento: En España no existe un claro conocimiento sobre el grado en que la Toma de Decisiones Compartidas (TDC) es llevada a la práctica habitual en oncología. Nuestro trabajo analiza el rol preferido y el rol percibido de los pacientes oncológicos y mide el proceso de TDC desde su perspectiva. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo transversal mediante cuestionario autoadministrado a pacientes con distintos tipos de cáncer. Para evaluar el rol preferido y percibido por el paciente utilizamos The Control Preference Scales (CPS) y para medir la TDC se utilizó The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Resultados: De los 132 pacientes encuestados, solo 118 proporcionaron datos analizables. No se encontraron evidencias de que el sexo, edad, nivel educativo o tipo de tumor afectaran al rol preferido o al percibido. Solo el 59,3% estaba de acuerdo con el rol ejercido. Todos los que preferían un rol pasivo lo alcanzaban (21,2%), mientras que de los que deseaban uno compartido (78,8%), solo el 48,39% lo lograba y el 51,61% restante desempeñaba uno pasivo. Ninguno prefirió ni ejerció un rol activo. El conjunto de pacientes valoró el proceso de TDC con una puntuación de 41,07±5,94, en una escala de 0 a 100, alcanzando los pacientes urológicos una puntuación máxima de 61,39 ± 13,24. Conclusiones: Nuestro estudio no encuentra evidencias de que, desde el punto de vista del paciente oncológico, el modelo de TDC esté implementado en la práctica (AU)

Background: In Spain there is no clear knowledge about the degree to which Shared Decision Making (SDM) is carried out in the normal practice of oncology. Our article analyses the preferred role and the perceived role of oncological patients and measures the SDM process from their perspective. Material and methods: Descriptive transversal study using a self-conducted questionnaire with patients with different types of cancer. To evaluate the role preferred and perceived by the patient we used The Control Preference Scales (CPS) and to measure SDM we used The nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Results: Out of the 132 patients surveyed, only 118 provided analysable data. No evidence was found that sex, age, educational level or type of tumour affected the preferred role or the perceived role. Only 59.3% was in agreement with the role exercised. All of those who preferred a passive role achieved this (21.2%), while out of those who wanted a shared role (78.8%), this was achieved by only 48.39% while the remaining 51.61% played a passive role. None preferred or played an active role. The set of patients evaluated the SDM process with a score of 41.07±5.94, on a scale of 0 to 100, with the highest score of 61.39 ± 13.24 reached by urological patients. Conclusions: Our study found no evidence that, from the point of view of the oncological patient, the SDM model is being implemented in practice (AU)

[Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in oncology: Patient perceptions]. / Barreras y facilitadores para la implementación de la toma de decisiones compartidas en oncología: percepciones de los pacientes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, from the point of view of the oncological patient, who made the decision about their treatment, as well as the major barriers and facilitators that enabled Shared Decision Making to be implemented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive, sand association study using a self-report questionnaire to selected cancer patients, with casual sampling in different oncology clinics and random time periods. A total of 108 patients provided analysable data. The information was collected on sociodemographic and clinical variables, who made the decision about treatment, and level of agreement or disagreement with various barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: More than one-third (38.1%) of patients claimed to have participated in shared decision making with their doctor. Barriers such as, time, the difficulty of understanding, the paternalism, lack of fluid communication, and having preliminary and often erroneous information influenced the involvement in decision-making. However, to have or not have sufficient tools to aid decision making or the patient's interest to participate had no effect. As regards facilitators, physician motivation, their perception of improvement, and the interest of the patient had a positive influence. The exception was the possibility of financial incentives to doctors. CONCLUSIONS: The little, or no participation perceived by cancer patients in decisions about their health makes it necessary to introduce improvements in the health care model to overcome barriers and promote a more participatory attitude in the patient.