Perceived Patient Workload and Its Impact on Outcomes During New Cancer Patient Visits: Analysis of a Convenience Sample
- PMID: 37594798
- PMCID: PMC10474510
- DOI: 10.2196/49490
Perceived Patient Workload and Its Impact on Outcomes During New Cancer Patient Visits: Analysis of a Convenience Sample
Abstract
Background: Studies exploring the workload in health care focus on the doctors' perspectives. The ecology of the health care environment is critical and different for doctors and patients.
Objective: In this study, we explore the patient workload among newly diagnosed patients with cancer during their first visit and its impact on the patient's perceptions of the quality of care (their trust in their doctors, their satisfaction with the care visits, their perception of technology use).
Methods: We collected data from the Hackensack Meridian Health, John Theurer Cancer Center between February 2021 and May 2022. The technology use considered during the visit is related to doctors' use of electronic health records. A total of 135 participants were included in the study. Most participants were 50-64 years old (n=91, 67.41%). A majority (n=81, 60%) of them were White, and only (n=16, 11.85%) went to graduate schools.
Results: The findings captured the significant effect of overall workload on trust in doctors and perception of health IT use within the visits. On the other hand, the overall workload did not impact patients' satisfaction during the visit. A total of 80% (n=108) of patients experienced an overall high level of workload. Despite almost 55% (n=75) of them experiencing a high mental load, 71.1% (n=96) reported low levels of effort, 89% (n=120) experienced low time pressure, 85.2% (n=115) experienced low frustration levels, and 69.6% (n=94) experienced low physical activity. The more overall workload patients felt, the less they trusted their doctors (odds ratio [OR] 0.059, 95% CI 0.001-2.34; P=.007). Low trust was also associated with the demanding mental tasks in the visits (OR 0.055, 95% CI 0.002-2.64; P<.001), the physical load (OR 0.194, 95% CI 0.004-4.23; P<.001), the time load (OR 0.183, 95% CI 0.02-2.35; P=.046) the effort needed to cope with the environment (OR 0.163, 95% CI 0.05-1.69; P<.001), and the frustration levels (OR 0.323, 95% CI 0.04-2.55; P=.03). The patients' perceptions of electronic health record use during the visit were negatively impacted by the overall workload experienced by the patients (OR 0.315, 95% CI 0.08-6.35; P=.01) and the high frustration level experienced (OR 0.111, 95% CI 0.015-3.75; P<.001).
Conclusions: The study's findings established pathways for future research and have implications for cancer patients' workload. Better technology design and use can minimize perceived workload, which might contribute to the trust relationship between doctors and patients in this critical environment. Future human factors work needs to explore the workload and driving factors in longitudinal studies and assess whether these workloads might contribute to unintended patient outcomes and medical errors.
Keywords: cancer patients’ workload; health care; health information technology; satisfaction; trust.
©Safa Elkefi, Onur Asan. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 18.08.2023.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Figures
![Figure 1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10474510/bin/humanfactors_v10i1e49490_fig1.gif)
![Figure 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10474510/bin/humanfactors_v10i1e49490_fig2.gif)
![Figure 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10474510/bin/humanfactors_v10i1e49490_fig3.gif)
![Figure 4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10474510/bin/humanfactors_v10i1e49490_fig4.gif)
Similar articles
-
Validating the Effectiveness of the Patient-Centered Cancer Care Framework by Assessing the Impact of Work System Factors on Patient-Centered Care and Quality of Care: Interview Study With Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients.JMIR Hum Factors. 2024 Apr 24;11:e53053. doi: 10.2196/53053. JMIR Hum Factors. 2024. PMID: 38656776 Free PMC article.
-
Doctors' perceived working conditions, psychological health and patient care: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.Occup Environ Med. 2023 Feb;80(2):61-69. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2022-108486. Epub 2023 Jan 12. Occup Environ Med. 2023. PMID: 36635099 Review.
-
Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 15;4(4):CD010412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010412.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 30982950 Free PMC article.
-
Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead.Ann Intern Med. 2012 Oct 2;157(7):461-70. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-7-201210020-00002. Ann Intern Med. 2012. PMID: 23027317 Free PMC article.
-
Interventions for improving patients' trust in doctors and groups of doctors.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD004134. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004134.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 04;(3):CD004134. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004134.pub3. PMID: 16856033 Updated. Review.
Cited by
-
Validating the Effectiveness of the Patient-Centered Cancer Care Framework by Assessing the Impact of Work System Factors on Patient-Centered Care and Quality of Care: Interview Study With Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients.JMIR Hum Factors. 2024 Apr 24;11:e53053. doi: 10.2196/53053. JMIR Hum Factors. 2024. PMID: 38656776 Free PMC article.
-
Exploring Predictors of Social Media Use for Health and Wellness during COVID-19 among Adults in the US: A Social Cognitive Theory Application.Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Dec 23;12(1):39. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12010039. Healthcare (Basel). 2023. PMID: 38200945 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Lewandowska A, Rudzki G, Lewandowski T, Rudzki S. The problems and needs of patients diagnosed with cancer and their caregivers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18(1):87. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010087. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/1/87 ijerph18010087 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Cancer statistics. National Cancer Institute. 2020. [2023-07-27]. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics .
-
- Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29210 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
-
- Katz SJ, Belkora J, Elwyn G. Shared decision making for treatment of cancer: challenges and opportunities. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(3):206–208. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2014.001434. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JOP.2014.001434 JOP.2014.001434 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Street RL. The Routledge Handbook of Health Communication, 1st Edition. Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England, UK: Routledge; 2003. Communication in medical encounters: an ecological perspective; pp. 77–104.
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources