Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions

Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Rebecca M. Schwartz [verfasserIn] Rowena Yip [verfasserIn] Nan You [verfasserIn] Christina Gillezeau [verfasserIn] Kimberly Song [verfasserIn] David F. Yankelevitz [verfasserIn] Emanuela Taioli [verfasserIn] Claudia I. Henschke [verfasserIn] Raja M. Flores [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: MDM Policy & Practice - SAGE Publishing, 2017, 7(2022)
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:7 ; year:2022

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1177/23814683221085570

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ046496637

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ046496637
003	DE-627
005	20230308110956.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1177/23814683221085570 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ046496637
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a R5-920
100	0		\|a Rebecca M. Schwartz \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery.
653		0	\|a Medicine (General)
700	0		\|a Rowena Yip \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Nan You \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Christina Gillezeau \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Kimberly Song \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a David F. Yankelevitz \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Emanuela Taioli \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Claudia I. Henschke \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Raja M. Flores \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t MDM Policy & Practice \|d SAGE Publishing, 2017 \|g 7(2022) \|w (DE-627)86290014X \|w (DE-600)2861432-X \|x 23814683 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:7 \|g year:2022
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_374
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2068
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2704
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2707
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2890
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4242
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 7 \|j 2022

Indexfelder

author_variant	r m s rms r y ry n y ny c g cg k s ks d f y dfy e t et c i h cih r m f rmf
matchkey_str	article:23814683:2022----::alsaeugacrainsecpinope
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	R
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1177/23814683221085570 doi (DE-627)DOAJ046496637 (DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rebecca M. Schwartz verfasserin aut Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery. Medicine (General) Rowena Yip verfasserin aut Nan You verfasserin aut Christina Gillezeau verfasserin aut Kimberly Song verfasserin aut David F. Yankelevitz verfasserin aut Emanuela Taioli verfasserin aut Claudia I. Henschke verfasserin aut Raja M. Flores verfasserin aut In MDM Policy & Practice SAGE Publishing, 2017 7(2022) (DE-627)86290014X (DE-600)2861432-X 23814683 nnns volume:7 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2022
spelling	10.1177/23814683221085570 doi (DE-627)DOAJ046496637 (DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rebecca M. Schwartz verfasserin aut Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery. Medicine (General) Rowena Yip verfasserin aut Nan You verfasserin aut Christina Gillezeau verfasserin aut Kimberly Song verfasserin aut David F. Yankelevitz verfasserin aut Emanuela Taioli verfasserin aut Claudia I. Henschke verfasserin aut Raja M. Flores verfasserin aut In MDM Policy & Practice SAGE Publishing, 2017 7(2022) (DE-627)86290014X (DE-600)2861432-X 23814683 nnns volume:7 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2022
allfields_unstemmed	10.1177/23814683221085570 doi (DE-627)DOAJ046496637 (DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rebecca M. Schwartz verfasserin aut Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery. Medicine (General) Rowena Yip verfasserin aut Nan You verfasserin aut Christina Gillezeau verfasserin aut Kimberly Song verfasserin aut David F. Yankelevitz verfasserin aut Emanuela Taioli verfasserin aut Claudia I. Henschke verfasserin aut Raja M. Flores verfasserin aut In MDM Policy & Practice SAGE Publishing, 2017 7(2022) (DE-627)86290014X (DE-600)2861432-X 23814683 nnns volume:7 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2022
allfieldsGer	10.1177/23814683221085570 doi (DE-627)DOAJ046496637 (DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rebecca M. Schwartz verfasserin aut Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery. Medicine (General) Rowena Yip verfasserin aut Nan You verfasserin aut Christina Gillezeau verfasserin aut Kimberly Song verfasserin aut David F. Yankelevitz verfasserin aut Emanuela Taioli verfasserin aut Claudia I. Henschke verfasserin aut Raja M. Flores verfasserin aut In MDM Policy & Practice SAGE Publishing, 2017 7(2022) (DE-627)86290014X (DE-600)2861432-X 23814683 nnns volume:7 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2022
allfieldsSound	10.1177/23814683221085570 doi (DE-627)DOAJ046496637 (DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Rebecca M. Schwartz verfasserin aut Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery. Medicine (General) Rowena Yip verfasserin aut Nan You verfasserin aut Christina Gillezeau verfasserin aut Kimberly Song verfasserin aut David F. Yankelevitz verfasserin aut Emanuela Taioli verfasserin aut Claudia I. Henschke verfasserin aut Raja M. Flores verfasserin aut In MDM Policy & Practice SAGE Publishing, 2017 7(2022) (DE-627)86290014X (DE-600)2861432-X 23814683 nnns volume:7 year:2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2022
language	English
source	In MDM Policy & Practice 7(2022) volume:7 year:2022
sourceStr	In MDM Policy & Practice 7(2022) volume:7 year:2022
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Medicine (General)
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	MDM Policy & Practice
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Rebecca M. Schwartz @@aut@@ Rowena Yip @@aut@@ Nan You @@aut@@ Christina Gillezeau @@aut@@ Kimberly Song @@aut@@ David F. Yankelevitz @@aut@@ Emanuela Taioli @@aut@@ Claudia I. Henschke @@aut@@ Raja M. Flores @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	86290014X
id	DOAJ046496637
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ046496637</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308110956.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1177/23814683221085570</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ046496637</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rebecca M. Schwartz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rowena Yip</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nan You</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Christina Gillezeau</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kimberly Song</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David F. Yankelevitz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emanuela Taioli</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Claudia I. Henschke</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Raja M. Flores</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">MDM Policy & Practice</subfield><subfield code="d">SAGE Publishing, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)86290014X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2861432-X</subfield><subfield code="x">23814683</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2704</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2707</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2890</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Rebecca M. Schwartz
spellingShingle	Rebecca M. Schwartz misc R5-920 misc Medicine (General) Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions
authorStr	Rebecca M. Schwartz
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)86290014X
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	R5-920
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	23814683
topic_title	R5-920 Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions
topic	misc R5-920 misc Medicine (General)
topic_unstemmed	misc R5-920 misc Medicine (General)
topic_browse	misc R5-920 misc Medicine (General)
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	MDM Policy & Practice
hierarchy_parent_id	86290014X
hierarchy_top_title	MDM Policy & Practice
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)86290014X (DE-600)2861432-X
title	Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ046496637 (DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc
title_full	Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions
author_sort	Rebecca M. Schwartz
journal	MDM Policy & Practice
journalStr	MDM Policy & Practice
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Rebecca M. Schwartz Rowena Yip Nan You Christina Gillezeau Kimberly Song David F. Yankelevitz Emanuela Taioli Claudia I. Henschke Raja M. Flores
container_volume	7
class	R5-920
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Rebecca M. Schwartz
doi_str_mv	10.1177/23814683221085570
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	early-stage lung cancer patients’ perceptions of presurgical discussions
callnumber	R5-920
title_auth	Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions
abstract	Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery.
abstractGer	Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery.
abstract_unstemmed	Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2704 GBV_ILN_2707 GBV_ILN_2890 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
title_short	Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions
url	https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570 https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683
remote_bool	true
author2	Rowena Yip Nan You Christina Gillezeau Kimberly Song David F. Yankelevitz Emanuela Taioli Claudia I. Henschke Raja M. Flores
author2Str	Rowena Yip Nan You Christina Gillezeau Kimberly Song David F. Yankelevitz Emanuela Taioli Claudia I. Henschke Raja M. Flores
ppnlink	86290014X
callnumber-subject	R - General Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1177/23814683221085570
callnumber-a	R5-920
up_date	2024-07-03T20:58:59.903Z
_version_	1803593019466711040
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ046496637</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308110956.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1177/23814683221085570</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ046496637</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rebecca M. Schwartz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Patients with early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have high survival rates, but patients often say they did not anticipate the effect of the surgery on their postsurgical quality of life (QoL). This study adds to the literature regarding patient and surgeon interactions and highlights the areas where the current approach is not providing good communication. Design Since its start in 2016, the Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART), a prospective cohort study, has enrolled 543 patients who underwent surgery for stage I NSCLC within the Mount Sinai Health System. Presurgical patient and surgeon surveys were available for 314 patients, postsurgical surveys for 420, and both pre- and postsurgical surveys for 285. Results Of patients with presurgical surveys, 31.2% said that their surgeon recommended multiple types of treatment. Of patients with postsurgical surveys, 85.0% felt very well prepared and 11.4% moderately well prepared for their postsurgical recovery. The median Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung Cancer score and social support score of the patients who felt very well prepared was significantly higher than those moderately or not well prepared (24.0 v. 22.0, P < 0.001) and (5.0 [interquartile range: 4.7–5.0] v. 5.0 [IQR: 4.2–5.0], p = 0.015). Conclusions This study provides insight into the areas where surgeons are communicating well with their patients as well as the areas where patients still feel uninformed. Most surgeons feel that they prepare their patients well or very well for surgical recovery, whereas some patients still feel that their surgeons did not prepare them well for postsurgical recovery. Surgeons may want to spend additional time emphasizing postsurgical recovery and QoL with their patients or provide their patients with additional avenues to get their questions and concerns addressed. Highlights Pretreatment discussions could help surgeons understand patient priorities and patients understand the anticipated outcomes for their surgeries. There is an association between feeling prepared for surgery and higher quality of life and social support scores after adjustment for confounders. Despite these pretreatment discussions, patients still feel that they are not well prepared about what to expect during their postsurgical recovery.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rowena Yip</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nan You</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Christina Gillezeau</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kimberly Song</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David F. Yankelevitz</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emanuela Taioli</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Claudia I. Henschke</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Raja M. Flores</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">MDM Policy & Practice</subfield><subfield code="d">SAGE Publishing, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2022)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)86290014X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2861432-X</subfield><subfield code="x">23814683</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d04531d0e52d4801be5523bfd0925dbc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683221085570</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2381-4683</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2704</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2707</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2890</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3995247

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Early-Stage Lung Cancer Patients’ Perceptions of Presurgical Discussions

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?