Teleoncology Orientation of Low-Income Breast Cancer Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Feasibility and Patient Satisfaction

Abstract

Objective The present study aims to assess the feasibility and patient satisfaction of teleoncology orientation in a vulnerable population of breast cancer patients assessed in a government health system during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

Methods Eligible patients received an invitation to receive remote care to minimize exposure to an environment in which the risk of respiratory infection was present. The means of communication was telephone through an application that allows free conversation with no charge. An anonymous-response questionnaire based on a Likert-type scale was sent through a cell phone application or e-mail directly to each patient or close relative of the patient immediately after teleconsultation. Responses to the questions, which addressed utility, facility, interface quality, interaction quality, reliability, satisfaction, and interest in future evaluation, were compiled and analyzed.

Results A total of 176 eligible patients scheduled for consultation were evaluated and 98 were included. Seventy (71.4%) successfully undertook the teleorientation. The questionnaire was submitted by 43 (61.4%) patients. The overall teleoncology orientation was classified as very positive by 41 (95.3%) patients. Specifically, regarding the questionnaire items, 43 (100%) patients scored 4 or 5 (agreed that the teleconsultation was beneficial) concerning the facility, followed by 42 (97.2%) for the interface quality, 41 (95.3%) for both utility and interaction quality, 40 (93%) for satisfaction and interest in future evaluation, and, finally, 39 (90.6%) for reliability.

Conclusion Teleoncology orientation of low-income breast cancer patients is most feasible and leads to high patient satisfaction.

Resumo

Objetivo O presente estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a viabilidade e satisfação em relação à orientação teleoncológica realizada em população vulnerável de pacientes com câncer de mama e provenientes do sistema público de saúde durante a pandemia do coronavírus em 2020.

Métodos Pacientes elegíveis foram agendados para atendimento remoto visando minimizar exposição a ambientes com risco de infecção respiratória. O meio de comunicação foi o telefone, pois permite conversa sem custos. Um questionário anônimo com base na escala Likert foi enviado através de aplicativo de telefone celular ou e-mail para paciente ou familiares, logo após a teleconsulta. As respostas, que abordavam utilidade, facilidade, qualidade da interface, qualidade da interação, confiabilidade, satisfação e interesse em avaliações futuras, foram compiladas e analisadas.

Resultados Um total de 176 pacientes elegíveis para teleconsulta foram avaliados e 98 foram incluídos. Setenta (71,4%) realizaram a teleorientação com sucesso. O questionário foi respondido por 43 (61,4%) pacientes. De maneira geral, a teleorientação foi classificada como muito positiva por 41 (95,3%) pacientes. Em relação aos itens avaliados, 43 (100%) pacientes pontuaram 4 ou 5 (concordaram que a teleconsulta era benéfica) em relação à facilidade do serviço, seguido por 42 (97,2%) para a qualidade da interface, 41 (95,3%) tanto para a utilidade quanto para a qualidade da interação, 40 (93%) para satisfação e interesse em avaliação futura e 39 (90,6%) para confiabilidade em relação ao método.

Conclusão A orientação teleoncológica em pacientes de baixa renda e com câncer de mama mostrou ser viável e com altas taxas de satisfação.

Keywords

telemedicine - breast cancer - pandemics - patient satisfaction

Palavras-chave

telemedicina - câncer de mama - pandemia - satisfação do patience

Contributions

1–Conception, planning, analysis, and interpretation of data: Miziara R. A.; D́Alessandro G. S.; Accorsi T. A. D.; Lima. K. D. A.; 2–Data collection: Miziara R. A.; D́Alessandro G. S.; Maesaka J. Y.; Matsumoto D. R. M.; Penteado L.; Anacleto A.; 3–Writing of the article or its critical intellectual review: Miziara R. A.; Maesaka J. Y.; D́Alessandro G. S.; Accorsi T. A. D.; Lima. K. D. A.; 4 - Responsibility for the final approval for publication: Miziara R. A.; D́Alessandro G. S.; Accorsi T. A. D.; Lima. K. D. A.; Cordioli E.

Publication History

Received: 04 March 2021

Accepted: 30 August 2021

Article published online:
06 December 2021

• References

• 1 Hollander JE, Carr BG. Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (18) 1679-1681 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2003539.
• 2 Combi C, Pozzani G, Pozzi G. Telemedicine for developing countries. A survey and some design issues. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (04) 1025-1050 DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2016-06-R-0089.
• 3 Kuehn BM. Telemedicine helps cardiologists extend their reach. Circulation 2016; 134 (16) 1189-1191 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025282.
• 4 Richards M, Anderson M, Carter P, Ebert BL, Mossialos E. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care. Nat Can 2020; 1: 1-3 DOI: 10.1038/s43018-020-0074-y.
• 5 Harbeck N, Gnant M. Breast cancer. Lancet 2017; 389 (10074): 1134-1150 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31891-8.
• 6 Sirintrapun SJ, Lopez AM. Telemedicine in cancer care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2018; 38: 540-545 DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_200141.
• 7 Spiess PE, Greene J, Keenan RJ, Paculdo D, Letson GD, Peabody JW. Meeting the challenge of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease in patients with cancer. Cancer 2020; 126 (14) 3174-3175 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32919.
• 8 Triberti S, Savioni L, Sebri V, Pravettoni G. eHealth for improving quality of life in breast cancer patients: A systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2019; 74: 1-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.01.003.
• 9 Parmanto B, Lewis Jr AN, Graham KM, Bertolet MH. Development of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). Int J Telerehabil 2016; 8 (01) 3-10 DOI: 10.5195/ijt.2016.6196.
• 10 Royce TJ, Sanoff HK, Rewari A. Telemedicine for cancer care in the time of COVID-19. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6 (11) 1698-1699 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2684.
• 11 Bashshur R, Doarn CR, Frenk JM, Kvedar JC, Woolliscroft JO. Telemedicine and the COVID-19 pandemic, lessons for the future. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (05) 571-573 DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2020.29040.rb.
• 12 Prasad A, Brewster R, Newman JG, Rajasekaran K. Optimizing your telemedicine visit during the COVID-19 pandemic: Practice guidelines for patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2020; 42 (06) 1317-1321 DOI: 10.1002/hed.26197.
• 13 Maldonado JM, Marques AB, Cruz A. Telemedicine: challenges to dissemination in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 2016; 32 (32, Suppl 2): e00155615 DOI: 10.1590/0102-311X00155615.
• 14 Bagayoko CO, Traoré D, Thevoz L, Diabaté D, Pecoul D, Niang M. et al. Medical and economic benefits of telehealth in low- and middle-income countries: results of a study in four district hospitals in Mali. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14 (Suppl. 01) S9 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-S1-S9.
• 15 Elkaddoum R, Haddad FG, Eid R, Kourie HR. Telemedicine for cancer patients during COVID-19 pandemic: between threats and opportunities. Future Oncol 2020; 16 (18) 1225-1227 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2020-0324.
• 16 Kumar D, Dey T. Treatment delays in oncology patients during COVID-19 pandemic: A perspective. J Glob Health 2020; 10 (01) 010367 DOI: 10.7189/jogh.10.010367.
• 17 Martins PC, Cotta RM, Mendes FF, Franceschinni SCC, Priore SW, Dias G. et al. Conselhos de saúde e a participação no Brasil: matizes da utopia. Physis 2008; 18 (01) 105-121 DOI: 10.1590/S0103-73312008000100007.
• 18 Fitzpatrick R. Surveys of patients satisfaction: I–Important general considerations. BMJ 1991; 302 (6781): 887-889 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.302.6781.887.
• 19 Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45 (12) 1829-1843 DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00128-7.
• 20 Sayani S, Muzammil M, Saleh K, Muqeet A, Zaidi F, Shaikh T. Addressing cost and time barriers in chronic disease management through telemedicine: an exploratory research in select low- and middle-income countries. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2019; 10: 2040622319891587 DOI: 10.1177/2040622319891587.
• 21 Shalowitz DI, Smith AG, Bell MC, Gibb RK. Teleoncology for gynecologic cancers. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 139 (01) 172-177 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.042.