Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Virtual follow-up (VFU) has the potential to enhance cancer survivorship care. However, a greater understanding is needed of how VFU can be optimized.
Objective: This study aims to examine how, for whom, and in what contexts VFU works for cancer survivorship care.
Methods: We conducted a realist evaluation of VFU among patients with breast cancer and prostate cancer at an urban cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Realist evaluations examine how underlying causal processes of an intervention (mechanisms) in specific circumstances (contexts) interact to produce results (outcomes). Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of patients ≤5 years after diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using a realist logic of analysis.
Results: Participants (N=24; n=12, 50% with breast cancer and n=12, 50% with prostate cancer) had an average age of 59.6 (SD 10.7) years. Most participants (20/24, 83%) were satisfied with VFU and wanted VFU options to continue after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, VFU impacted patient perceptions of the quality of their care, particularly in terms of its effectiveness and patient centeredness. Whether VFU worked well for patients depended on patient factors (eg, needs, psychosocial well-being, and technological competence), care provider factors (eg, socioemotional behaviors and technological competence), and virtual care system factors (eg, modality, functionality, usability, virtual process of care, and communication workflows). Key mechanisms that interacted with contexts to produce positive outcomes (eg, satisfaction) were visual cues, effective and empathetic communication, and a trusting relationship with their provider.
Conclusions: Patients value VFU; however, VFU is not working as well as it could for patients. To optimize VFU, it is critical to consider contexts and mechanisms that impact patient perceptions of the patient centeredness and effectiveness of their care. Offering patients the choice of in-person, telephone, or video visits when possible, coupled with streamlined access to in-person care when required, is important. Prioritizing and addressing patient needs; enhancing physician virtual socioemotional behaviors and technology competency; and enhancing VFU functionality, usability, and processes of care and communication workflows will improve patient perceptions of the patient centeredness and effectiveness of virtual care.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/65148 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!