Patients with rectal cancer are satisfied with in-hospital communication despite insufficient information regarding treatment alternatives and potential side-effects

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow chart of patients included in the analyses at baseline and at the one year follow-up. Please note that 33 patients answered the questionnaire at the one year follow-up, but not at baseline. One centre was excluded due to poor inclusion. ^*Baseline questionnaires were distributed after diagnosis, prior to start of treatment.

Table 1. Demographics and clinical data for patients in the QoLiRECT patient cohort at baseline, after diagnosis prior to treatment.

	Baseline
	n=	Missing
Number of patients	1.085
Age^a	68	0
Sex, M:F	693:392	0
Quality of life (lower)^b	734 (68)	10
Global HRQoL (EQ-5D VAS) (median, Q1;Q3)	79 (60;90)	87
In a relationship	796 (74)	11
University education (yes)	191 (18)	45
Occupation		17
Working	311 (29)
Retired	692 (65)
Unemployed	14 (1)
Sick-leave	51 (5)
Comorbidity (yes)	661 (61)	9
Depression (no)	895 (83)	12
Sense of coherence, mean (SD; range)^c	158 (20; 85–203)	29
Negative intrusive thoughts (yes)	885 (83)	16
Palliative intention of treatment	73 (7)	0

Values in parenthesis are percentages.

^aYears in median (range).

^bGlobal quality of life according to a seven-point Likert scale, lower indicates 1–4.

^c29-Item Sense of Coherence scale (SOC-29).

Table 2. Description of all the patients (n = 198) and a subgroup analysis of the patients with palliative treatment (n = 37) that answered the baseline questionnaire but did not answer the questionnaire at the one year follow-up.

	All patients included at baseline				Subgroup analysis of patients with palliative intention of treatment
	Baseline cohort		Drop out at the one year follow-up		All patients with palliative intention of treatment, at baseline		Included at one year follow-up		Drop out at the one year follow-up
	n=	Missing	n=	Missing	n=	Missing	n=	Missing	n=	Missing
Number of patients	1.085		198		73		36		37
Age^a	68 (25–100)	0	71 (35–93)	0	70 (35–95)	0	68 (43–95)	0	70 (35–93)	0
Deceased, at one year follow-up			49						20	0
Sex, M:F	693:392	0	138:60	0	56:17	0	30:6	0	26:11	0
ASA grade^b		133				56		26		30
1	235 (26)		30 (21)	52	4 (24)		2 (20)		2 (29)
2	564 (59)		85 (58)		5 (29)		3 (30)		2 (29)
3-4	153 (16)		31 (21)	133	8 (47)		5 (50)		3 (43)
Pathologic UICC stage^c		140		41		23		10		13
0	18 (2)		3 (2)		0		0		0
I	278 (29)		33 (21)		0		0		0
II	224 (24)		37 (24)		1 (2)		1 (4)		0
III	296 (31)		50 (32)		1 (2)		1 (4)		0
IV	129 (14)		34 (22)		48 (96)		24 (92)		24 (100)

Values in parenthesis are percentages.

^aYears in median (range).

^bAmerican Society of Anaesthesiology classification.

^cUnion for International Cancer Control.

Figure 2. Descriptive data of the patients’ experience of the overall communication at the surgical clinic over time, by repeated measures. Black indicates baseline (n = 1085) and grey (n = 920) the one year follow-up. *^‘Neither yes nor no’ and ‘Do not know’ where only used as an answer alternative in the one year follow-up questionnaire.

Figure 3. Descriptive data of patients’ (n = 920) assessments of sufficient information regarding the specified subjects at the one year follow-up.

Figure 4. Descriptive data of the patients’ assessments of the received information regarding potential side-effects of chemotherapy. Data were collected from the questionnaire distributed one year after diagnosis.

Table 3. Descriptive data of number of patients that stated they talked with their physician about the planned treatment’s possible effects on anatomy and functionality.

Talked with their physician about the planned treatment’s possible effects on	Frequencies
	Yes	Total	Missing^a
The urinary tract	335 (32)	1050	35
Their sex life	248 (24)	1.053	32
The bowel function	725 (70)	1.035	50

Values in parenthesis are percentages. Data collected from the questionnaire distributed at baseline, before start of treatment.

^a1085 patients were included in the analysis at baseline. The number indicates the patients that did not answer the specific question.

Table 4. Descriptive data of the patients with palliative care (n = 42) experience of the overall communication at the oncological clinic.

	Frequencies
	Yes	No	Neither yes nor no	Not applicable^a	Total	Missing^b
Have you been treated well at the oncological clinic?	33 (89)	0	0	4 (11)	37	5
Do you experience that your concerns have been taken seriously at the oncological clinic?	34 (92)	0	0	3 (8)	37	5
Do you feel that you are in safe hands at the oncological clinic?	33 (92)	0	0	3 (8)	36	6
Did you dare to ask the questions you wanted at the oncological clinic?	33 (92)	0	0	3 (8)	36	6
Have you had the opportunity to ask the questions you wanted at the oncological clinic?	32 (91)	0	3 (9)	2 (6)	35	7
Have you experienced that the communication with the physicians at the oncological clinic was good?	30 (86)	0	3 (9)	2 (6)	35	7
Have you experienced that communication with the nurses at the oncological clinic was good?	34 (92)	0	0	3 (8)	37	5
Do you feel well-informed about your cancer and the treatment?^c	33 (85)	0	0	3 (8)	39	3

Values in parenthesis are percentages.

^aData were collected from the questionnaire distributed one year after diagnosis and only patients receiving treatment with palliative intent are presented.

^b42 Patients were included in the analyses. The number in the column ‘missing’ indicates the number of patients that did not answer the specific question.

^cAnswering alternatives for the question concerning the last question, well-informed about cancer, were ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Neither yes nor no’ and ‘Do not know’.