umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Access to supportive care during and after cancer treatment and the impact of socioeconomic factors
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Acta Oncologica, ISSN 0284-186X, E-ISSN 1651-226X, Vol. 57, no 10, p. 1303-1310Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Sweden's national cancer strategy points out several areas of cancer care that need improvements. Among them the need for supportive care resources to be accessible through the entire cancer trajectory and the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities. The aim of this study was to compare the patient-reported access to supportive care in the Stockholm-Gotland region between patients diagnosed in 2014 and 2016. The aim was also to describe how socioeconomic and other demographic factors impact access to supportive care.

Material and methods: All patients with gynaecological, head and neck, haematological and upper gastrointestinal cancers diagnosed in the Stockholm-Gotland regions were identified through the Swedish Cancer Registries. Data were collected via a questionnaire on demographic, socioeconomic factors and patients' perception (n=1872) of access to supportive care. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression was used for relevant variables.

Results: Access to some supportive care resources, such as contact nurses (CNs) and individual written care plans (IWCPs) had significantly improved from 2014 to 2016. The proportion of patients that had received information about patient advocacy groups (PAGs) had also improved but remained on a relatively low level (29 and 35%, respectively). The proportion of patients being refereed to palliative care (PC) did not change between 2014 and 2016. In total, 10% of the patients reported to having received information on second medical opinion (SMO). Patients that had undergone multimodality cancer treatment were more likely to report access to supportive care, and those with lower education levels were more likely to have access to CNs and IWCPs.

Conclusion: Access to some of the supportive care resources have shown improvements in the Stockholm-Gotland region but further efforts are required, especially regarding access to PC, information about PAGs and SMOs.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2018. Vol. 57, no 10, p. 1303-1310
National Category
Cancer and Oncology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-153840DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1484157ISI: 000448595500004PubMedID: 29947281OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-153840DiVA, id: diva2:1269622
Available from: 2018-12-11 Created: 2018-12-11 Last updated: 2018-12-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1437 kB)68 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1437 kBChecksum SHA-512
02bfe680e629ddf1ada3ca35f5ee2cebcfca270800e79aec7d28bacb2be92de1238ce98252e31632112c9b38b7582a6c8be62d499bdf5892757eb94e4263fae3
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Henriksson, Roger

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Henriksson, Roger
By organisation
Oncology
In the same journal
Acta Oncologica
Cancer and Oncology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 68 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 121 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf