Prevalence and risk factors associated with the comprehensive needs of cancer patients in China

Abstract

Background The incidence and mortality rates of cancer have been increasing in developing countries, particularly in Asia. Therefore to provide optimal comprehensive care to the cancer patients, the care plan must focus on the comprehensive needs of cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the comprehensive needs of cancer patients, and explore the associated factors. Methods In a cross-sectional questionnaire study, a total of 200 cancer patient-caregiver dyads were selected and interviewed in Mainland China by convenient sampling method. Patients’ comprehensive needs were assessed with Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool in cancer for Patients (CNAT), including seven domains (Information, Psychological Problems, Health Care Staffs, Physical Symptoms, Hospital Facilities and Services, Social/Religious/Spiritual Support and Practical Support). Both cancer patients and caregivers completed the sociodemographic survey. The mean differences in domain scores for different characteristics groups were compared by one-way ANOVA or non-parametric analyses, and influencing factors defined with multivariate regression analysis. Results The cancer patients’ need for Health Care Staffs (78.35 ± 13.08) was the highest among the seven domains, followed by the need for Information (71.18 ± 17.39) and the need for Hospital Facilities and Services (52.65 ± 13.35). The lowest score was the need for Physical Symptoms (35.12 ± 16.68). Patients who were female, with low family monthly income, at their own expense, and with highly educated caregivers had higher score of CNAT. Also sociodemographic characteristics were associated with each domain need of cancer patients. Conclusion This study shows that cancer patients experience high levels of needs for health-care staff and information, and the different needs are closely related to their sociological characteristics. The provision of health care can be adapted to meet the different needs of cancer patients of different epidemiological characteristics at different times during the course of treatment.

Quality of life and associated factors among adults living with cancer and their family caregivers

“…Similarly, in another systematic review of 50 studies on care needs in advanced people with cancer and informal caregivers, psychological, physical, and information were the areas of highest need (Wang et al, 2018). In this study, physical symptoms was an area of highest need, which is in contrast with Zhao et al (2019), who reported physical symptoms as the lowest need. This finding suggests that Nigerians living with cancer may not have access or understanding of therapy to reduce physical symptoms of cancer, whereas patients in other countries benefit from supportive traditional and complementary medicine systems (Klafke et al, 2015; Üstündag & Zencirci, 2015).…”

“…All the surveys are validated tools that have been used in various nations (Ashrafian et al, 2018; Judkins et al, 2019; Meyers et al, 2011; Zhao et al, 2019). In this study, construct validity was assessed by exploratory factor analysis.…”

Financial toxicity of cancer care in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…One study applied a pre-existing generic nancial assessment instrument, namely the PFW scale, which consists of: ve items on the psychosocial; two items on nancial resources; and one item on coping strategies (34). One study utilised the Chinese version of the cancer-speci c Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool (CNAT) (35).…”

“…The pooled mean medical costs of surgery were $1,678.80 [95% CI, $62.39, $3,295.20]; p = 0.04; I 2 = 100%), which varied greatly from breast cancer ($82. 35 (24). Mean direct non-medical costs were observed to be signi cant (p < 0.00001).…”

“…Seven studies reported data on illness cost and HRQoL (19,21,22,31,32,34,35). Random-effects metaanalyses showed that cancer patients experiencing high nancial toxicity was signi cantly linked to low HRQoL (12.63 [95% CI, 9.04, 16.21]; P < 0.00001; I 2 = 89%), with higher heterogeneity across studies (Supplementary Figure 1).…”