Background: Cancer patients increasingly seek second opinion (SO) consultations, but there is scarce empirical evidence to substantiate medical and psychological benefits for patients. This is the first study to examine patient- and oncologist-reported (1) motivations and expectations of patients to seek a SO, (2) the perceived medical outcome, and (3) psychological consequences of SOs over time (i.e. patients' uncertainty and anxiety).
Material And Methods: This multi-informant longitudinal cohort study (SO-COM) included consecutive cancer patients referred for a SO ( = 70; age 28-85), as well as their referring and consulting oncologists. Outcome measures were completed at three time points: Patients and referring oncologists reported motivations and expectations before the SO (T), patients and consulting oncologists reported the medical outcome of the SO (i.e. discrepancy between first and second opinion) immediately following the SO (T), and patients reported their uncertainty and anxiety at T, T, and two months following the SO (T).
Results: Cancer patients most frequently reported , and/or as motivations for SOs. Referring oncologists rather accurately anticipated these motivations, except most did not recognize patients' information needs. The vast majority of patients (90.0%) received a medical advice similar to the first opinion, although 65.7% had expected to receive a different opinion. Patients' uncertainty ( = 6.82, =.002; =.22), but not anxiety ( = 3.074, =.055, =.11) was significantly reduced after the SO.
Conclusions: SOs can yield psychological benefits by reducing patients' uncertainty, but the added medical value remains debatable. Referring oncologists may not be fully aware of their patients' information needs. Patients should be better informed about goals and benefits of SOs to better manage their expectations. More cost-effective ways of optimally providing medically and psychologically valuable SOs need to be explored.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2020.1794036 | DOI Listing |
Expert Opin Drug Deliv
January 2025
CICS-UBI - Health Sciences Research Centre, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal.
Introduction: Although there are numerous options for epilepsy treatment, its effective control continues unsatisfactory. Thus, search for alternative therapeutic options to improve the efficacy/safety binomial of drugs becomes very attractive to investigate. In this context, intranasal administration of antiseizure drugs formulated on state-of-the-art nanosystems can be a promising strategy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPain Pract
February 2025
Department of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai West Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Objectives: Chronic pain is a debilitating, multifactorial condition. The purpose of this study was to examine patient characteristics of those who did not show up for their scheduled first pain medicine appointment in order to identify factors that may improve access to care.
Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 810 patients from a single-center academic pain management clinic between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak
January 2025
Department of Psychiatry, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Objective: To determine referral patterns for psychiatric consultations among COVID-19 patients encompassing both the in-patient and Emergency Department of a multidisciplinary hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.
Study Design: A retrospective chart review. Place and Duration of the Study: The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, from March 2020 to December 2021.
Colorectal Dis
January 2025
Department of Surgery, NHS Lanarkshire, Lanarkshire, UK.
Aim: The aim of this work was to quantify post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates in National Health Service (NHS) Scotland using World Endoscopy Association guidelines, compare incidence between health boards and referral streams and explore comparisons in results with published data from other healthcare systems.
Method: This is a population-based cohort study using NHS Scotland data between 2012 and 2018. All people undergoing colonoscopy between 2012 and 2018 and subsequently diagnosed as having bowel cancer up to 3 years after their investigation were included.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!