Disruptive Women in Health Care » Blog Archive » What Does It Matter to You: Patient Activation and Good Health Outcomes (on attitudes, knowledge, communication and abuse??)

Disruptive Women in Health Care » Blog Archive » What Does It Matter to You: Patient Activation and Good Health Outcomes

abstract: Public attitudes toward cancer and cancer patients: a national survey in Korea

Blogger's Note: very sad findings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public attitudes toward cancer and cancer patients: a national survey in Korea.
Psychooncology. 2012 Feb 16;
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regardless of improved survival rate, negative images and myths about cancer still abound. Cancer stigma may reduce patients' life opportunities resulting in social isolation, decreased level of emotional well-being, and poor health outcomes. This study was aimed to evaluate public attitudes toward cancer and cancer patients and people's willingness to disclose cancer diagnosis in South Korea.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in August and September 2009. A nationally representative sample of 1011 men and women with no history of cancer was recruited. A set of 12 questions grouped into three domains (impossibility of recovery, cancer stereotypes, and discrimination) was used to assess public attitudes toward cancer.
RESULTS: It was found 58.5% of study participants agreed that it is impossible to treat cancer regardless of highly developed medical science, 71.8% agreed that cancer patients would not be able to make contributions to society, and 23.5% agreed that they would avoid working with persons who have cancer. The proportions of people who said that that they would not disclose a cancer diagnosis to family, friends or neighbors, or coworkers were 30.2%, 47.0%, and 50.7%, respectively. Negative attitudes toward cancer were strongly associated with lower willingness to disclose a cancer diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Negative attitudes, stereotypes, and discriminating attitudes toward cancer and people affected by the disease were very common in spite of clinical progress and improved survivorship.
IMPACT: Our findings emphasize the need for health policy and social changes to provide a more supportive environment for cancer survivors.

Patients’ attitudes towards the involvement of medical students during induction of regional anesthesia

Continental Divide? The Attitudes of US and Canadian Oncologists on the Costs, Cost-Effectiveness, and Health Policies Associated With New Cancer Drugs

Health Services and Outcomes

Continental Divide? The Attitudes of US and Canadian Oncologists on the Costs, Cost-Effectiveness, and Health Policies Associated With New Cancer Drugs

From the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center; University of Toronto; Keenan Research Center in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto; McMaster University; Juravinski Cancer Center at Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton; Peel Regional Cancer Center, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI; Charles Sammons Cancer Center, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX; and the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.


ABSTRACT

Purpose Oncologists in the United States and Canada work in different health care systems, but physicians in both countries face challenges posed by the rising costs of cancer drugs. We compared their attitudes regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of medications and related health policy.

Methods Survey responses of a random sample of 1,355 United States and 238 Canadian medical oncologists (all outside of Québec) were compared.

Results Response rate was 59%. More US oncologists (67% v 52%; P < .001) favor access to effective treatments regardless of cost, while more Canadians favor access to effective treatments only if they are cost-effective (75% v 58%; P < .001). Most (84% US, 80% Canadian) oncologists state that patient out-of-pocket costs influence their treatment recommendations, but less than half the respondents always or frequently discuss the costs of treatments with their patients. The majority of oncologists favor more use of cost-effectiveness data in coverage decisions (80% US, 69% Canadian; P = .004), but fewer than half the oncologists in both countries feel well equipped to use cost-effectiveness information. Majorities of oncologists favor government price controls (57% US, 68% Canadian; P = .01), but less than half favor more cost-sharing by patients (29% US, 41% Canadian; P = .004). Oncologists in both countries prefer to have physicians and nonprofit agencies determine whether drugs provide good value. 

(blogger's usual take (based on abstract): and patients in the determination process ??)

 






Conclusion Oncologists in the United States and Canada generally have similar attitudes regarding cancer drug costs, cost-effectiveness, and associated policies, despite practicing in different health care systems. The results support providing education to help oncologists in both countries use cost-effectiveness information and discuss drug costs with their patients.

Access : Awareness of ovarian cancer risk factors, beliefs and attitudes towards screening -baseline survey of 21,715 women participating in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening : British Journal of Cancer

Note: this study shows awareness levels in women who were wishing to enroll in a clinical trial program as opposed to the numerous surveys which have been done in the general population eg. the results would differ

Background:
Women's awareness of ovarian cancer (OC) risks, their attitudes towards and beliefs about screening, together with misunderstandings or gaps in knowledge, may influence screening uptake.

Methods:
In total, 21 715 post-menopausal women completed questionnaires before randomisation into the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.