Cited by 45Palliative and Oncologic CareInterprofessional Education and CollaborationCancer survivorship and care

Views of psycho-oncologists, physicians, and nurses on cancer care—A qualitative study

Open access
Steven, Berenike, Lange, Lukas, Schulz, Holger, Bleich, Christiane·2019·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As worldwide cancer prevalence continues to increase, the challenges facing cancer care are also increasing. Various topics related to deficiencies in cancer care have been discussed repeatedly in the literature. The most frequently stated topics are the unmet psychosocial support needs of cancer patients, difficulties in multidisciplinary teamwork, difficulties in communication between physicians and patients, and issues in palliative care settings. However, there is little research regarding the views of health care providers on these topics. With the aim of gaining abundant information regarding the care of German cancer patients, this study explores the stances of psycho-oncologists, physicians, and nurses regarding the quality of cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) and in different oncological outpatient offices in Hamburg; twenty-five interviews in total were conducted with health care providers. Interviews were semi-structured to gain a broad range of information on cancer care. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke with an inductive, constant comparison approach to identify themes and categorized codes. RESULTS: The following five principle themes were identified in the interviews: "psycho-oncological care", "cooperation of health care providers", "palliative care", "health care provider-patient contact", and "coordination and organization of care". Participants seemed satisfied with the overall quality of cancer care in Germany. Nevertheless, the results showed deficiencies regarding communication among different health care providers and between health care providers and patients. Important findings in conjunction with these communication problems were a lack of psycho-oncological support, shortages in the oncology work force, language and cultural barriers, and deficient education in the communication of providers. CONCLUSIONS: The statements of psycho-oncologists, physicians, and nurses on cancer care provide a suitable basis to conduct further focused research on the studied deficiencies in cancer care. In particular, communication in psycho-oncological care, communication within multidisciplinary teams, and health care provider-patient communication should be further explored with the aim of developing new ideas for improvements and thereby enhancing the quality of cancer care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0210325

Cites

77 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Breast cancer survivors in this study recognized the current limitations of in-person psychosocial support, particularly a shortage of mental health clinicians trained to meet the unique needs of cancer survivors.

    “Breast cancer survivors in this study recognized the current limitations of in-person psychosocial support [9,71], particularly a shortage of mental health clinicians trained to meet the unique needs of cancer survivors [11,72,73].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [75]Patlak M, Levit L. Ensuring quality cancer care through the oncology workforce—sustaining care in the 21st century—workshop summary: the National Academy of Sciences; 2009. 25009939

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steven, B., Lange, L., Schulz, H., & Bleich, C.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Lange, Lukas
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2019-01-16
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
e0210325
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2910129827
Cited by
45
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
quality of cancer care, psycho-oncology, healthcare provider perspectives, physician-patient communication, multidisciplinary teamwork, palliative care, psychosocial support, care coordination, oncology workforce shortage, language and cultural barriers
MeSH terms
Oncologists, Psychosocial Support Systems, Attitude of Health Personnel, Communication, Female, Germany, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Neoplasms, Nurses, Palliative Care, Physicians, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychology, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review