JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Discordance in perceived needs between patients and physicians in oncology practice: a nationwide survey in Korea.

PURPOSE: Identification of supportive care needs in patients with cancer is essential for planning appropriate interventions. We aimed to determine patient-physician concordance in perceived supportive care needs in cancer care and to explore the predictors and potential consequences of patient-physician concordance.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A national, multicenter, cross-sectional survey of patient-physician dyads was performed, and 97 oncologists (participation rate, 86.5%) and 495 patients (participation rate, 87.4%) were included. A short form of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool for Cancer Patients was independently administered to patients and their oncologists. Concordance and agreement rates between physicians and patients were calculated. Mixed logistic regression was used to identify predictors of concordance and to explore the association of concordance with patient satisfaction and trust in physicians.

RESULTS: Physicians systematically underestimated patient needs and patient-physician concordance was generally poor, with weighted κ statistics ranging from 0.04 to 0.15 for individual items and Spearman's ρ coefficients ranging from 0.11 to 0.21 for questionnaire domains. Length of experience as oncologist was the only significant predictor of concordance (adjusted odds ratio for overall concordance [aOR] = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.31). Concordance was not significantly associated with overall patient satisfaction (aOR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.07) or trust in physician (aOR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.81).

CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed significant underestimation of patient needs and poor concordance between patients and physicians in assessing perceived needs of supportive care. The clinical implications of this discordance warrant further investigation.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app