Medical Education - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/190

Filters

2017 - 2019 1 2020 - 2022 1
2
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Author: Drosdowsky, Allison × Author: Mileshkin, Linda × Author: Schofield, Penelope ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    No Preview Available
    Women with gynaecological cancer awaiting radiotherapy: Self-reported wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function, and supportive care needs
    Gough, K ; Bergin, RJ ; Drosdowsky, A ; Aranda, S ; Mileshkin, L ; Jackson, M ; Kinnane, N ; Bernshaw, D ; Juraskova, I ; White, K ; Mohamed, M ; Schofield, P (ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2022-10)
    OBJECTIVE: To better serve women with gynaecological cancers, we need a sound understanding of their health, wellbeing and needs. This study sought to explore these issues in a sample of Australian women before commencing curative radiotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a supportive care trial (n = 311). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise responses to measures of wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function and vaginal changes, and supportive care needs. Pre-specified regression models were used to examine sources of variation in wellbeing and sexual function. RESULTS: Women reported lower emotional, functional and physical wellbeing than population norms (all p < 0.001). The prevalence of general psychological distress was 31% (95% CI 26-36%). Distress caused by physical symptoms was typically low. Health system and information needs comprised eight of the top ten moderate-to-high supportive care needs. Most women reported no change in interest for physical contact or sex compared to pre-diagnosis, but some sexually active women (16-24%) reported smaller vaginal size, increased dryness, and more pain on intercourse. General psychological distress was a robust marker of poorer wellbeing and sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Before radiotherapy, a substantial minority of women with gynaecological cancers experience general psychological distress, reduced wellbeing and moderate-to-high health system and information needs. A model of comprehensive care incorporating assessment of unmet needs, general psychological distress, and sexual issues is recommended. Healthcare providers may require training to elicit and respond to a constellation of interrelated issues and access relevant services for women requiring additional support.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Differences in experiences of care between patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer of known and unknown primaries: mixed-method findings from the 2013 cancer patient experience survey in England
    Wagland, R ; Bracher, M ; Drosdowsky, A ; Richardson, A ; Symons, J ; Mileshkin, L ; Schofield, P (BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2017-09)
    OBJECTIVES: To explore differences in experiences of care reported in the Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) between patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) and those with metastatic disease of known primary (non-CUP); to determine insights pertaining to the experiences of care for CUP respondents from free-text comments. DESIGN: Two separate, but related, studies, involving secondary analysis of existing data. Using frequency matching of CUP and non-CUP patients, statistical comparisons of responses to CPES questions were conducted. Free-text comments from CUP respondents were analysed thematically. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The CPES questionnaire comprises 63 closed questions measuring 8 areas that relate to experience of care and 3 free-text questions. Questionnaires were mailed to all adult patients (aged ≥16 years) in England with cancer admitted to hospital between 1 September 2013 and 30 November 2013. RESULTS: Matched analysis of closed response items from 2992 patients found significant differences between CUP (n=1496) and non-CUP patients (n=1496): CUP patients were more likely to want more written information about their type of cancer and tests received, to receive their diagnosis from a general practitioner (GP) and have seen allied health professionals, but less likely to have understood explanations of their condition or had surgery. Freetext responses (n=3055) were coded into 17 categories and provided deeper insight regarding patient information and interactions with GPs. CPES data may include a preponderance of patients with favourable CUP subtypes and patients initially identified as CUP but whose primary was subsequently identified. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first large-scale studies to explore the experiences of care of CUP patients. The significant differences identified between the experiences of CUP and non-CUP patients suggest CUP patients require more psychosocial support and specific interventions to manage diagnostic uncertainty and the multiple investigations many CUP patients face. Substantial limitations were identified with the CPES data, emphasising the need for prospective studies.