Could knowledge of patient demographics facilitate a personalized approach to radiation therapy patient education?

Abstract

IntroductionUsing patient demographics to tailor cancer patient education processes results in improved patient outcomes. However, there is little information on how to successfully tailor radiation therapy (RT) educational content and delivery. The aim of this quality improvement project was to describe the information preferences of a diverse group of patients undergoing RT and determine if different RT education processes were associated with certain patient demographics. Materials and MethodsAn educational needs assessment questionnaire, based on a validated tool, was offered to all patients undergoing RT on a single day. Questionnaire sections included demographics and questions regarding the importance of topics related to RT treatments, desired mode of information delivery, quantity of information, desired timing of information, and satisfaction with information received. Patients were also asked to answer qualitative questions focused on what was working well and what could be improved. Participants’ responses were cohorted based on demographic groupings (age, gender, education level) and were tested for statistically significant differences and associations. Results130 patients completed the questionnaire. Compared to those over 60 years, more participants who were 50 – 59 years old thought the topics were ‘very important’ (96% vs 77%, p<0.001) and wanted a higher quantity of information about the topics (80% vs 66%, p<0.001). More participants over 70 years old preferred pamphlets compared to those less than 70 years (48% vs 30%, p<0.047) while more participants under 50 years old preferred one-on-one sessions compared to those older than 50 years (40% vs 25%, p<0.038). Fewer participants <50 years wanted information at their first meeting with the Radiation Oncologist compared to those older than 50 years (57% vs 73%, p<0.001). Compared to the male cohort, more female participants felt the information topics were more important (83% vs 74%, p<0.0001) and had more unmet education needs (29% vs 17%, p<0.001). Compared to those with post-secondary education, more participants with primary or high school education desired a higher quantity of information (76% vs 65%, p<0.001), preferred to receive that information using pamphlets (43% vs 32%, p=0.006) and wanted all the information at the first opportunity (81% vs 67%, p<0.001). ConclusionsThis quality improvement project found that age, gender and education level influenced patient preferences for information quantity, delivery mode and timing of RT education. These findings are promising and support further evaluations to determine a more precise definition of the personal factors that could help to individualize our approach to educating patients receiving RT.