Table 4 Radiotherapists' perspectives on the usefulness and feasibility of the SIPP
| Ā | Scores: theoretical range | n | Mean score (SD) | Scores: observed range | Negative perspective (%)c Score ā¤ 4 | Moderate perspective (%)c Score 5, 6 | Positive perspective (%)c Score ā„ 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
After first consultation for each patient | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā |
1. The screening instrument invited to ask about the patient's psychosocial well-being | 0 (Not used) - 10 (Fully used) | 146 | 5.9 (2.8) | 0-10 | 17.8 | 6.2 | 30.3 |
2. The scores gave better insight into the patient's psychosocial well being | 0(Less insight) - 10(Very much insight) | 146 | 6.5 (2.4) | 0-10 | 12.3 | 4.1 | 36.2 |
3. Exchanging information about the subjects in the screening instrument gave better insight into the patient's psychosocial well being | 0(Less insight) - 10(Very much insight) | 146 | 6.3 (2.6) | 0-10 | 16.2 | 4.1 | 34.4 |
4. Time required to discuss the instrument | Open question (minutes) | 142 | 4.3 (2.5) | 0-15 | ---- | ---- | ---- |
More generally | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā |
5. Contribution of using the screening instrument for discussing physical complaints | 0 (No contribution) - 10 (Very good contribution) | 6a 6b | 3.2 (3.2) 3.5 (3.7) | 0-7 0-8 | 66.7 66.7 | 0.0 0.0 | 33.3 33.3 |
6. Contribution of using the screening instrument for discussing psychosocial complaints | 0 (No contribution) - 10 (Very good contribution) | 6 a 6 b | 4.7 (3.9) 3.7 (3.9) | 0-8 0-9 | 50.0 66.7 | 0.0 0.0 | 50.0 33.3 |
7. Contribution of using the screening instrument for discussing sexual problems | 0(No contribution)- 10(Very good contribution) | 6 a 6 b | 3.7 (4.0) 3.5 (4.4) | 0-9 0-10 | 66.7 66.7 | 0.0 0.0 | 33.3 33.3 |
8. Usefulness of discussing (the scores on) the screening instrument | 0(Not useful)- 10(Very useful) | 6 a 6 b | 4.8 (4.0) 4.0 (4.2) | 0-9 0-9 | 33.3 66.7 | 16.7 0.0 | 50.1 33.3 |
9. Discussing (the scores on) the screening instrument with the patient was pleasant | 0(Not pleasant)- 10(Very pleasant) | 6 a 5 b | 4.3 (3.5) 6.0 (4.1) | 0-8 0-10 | 33.3 33.4 | 33.4 0.0 | 33.3 33.4 |
10. Contribution of discussing the screening instrument to a better quality of consultation | 0(No positive contribution) - 10(Very positive contribution) | 5 a 5 b | 5.4 (3.4) 4.4 (4.0) | 0-9 0-9 | 40.0 50.1 | 0.0 0.0 | 60.0 33.4 |
11. Indication of the scores for referring patients to social caregivers | 0(No good indication)- 10(Very good indication) | --- 5 b | --- 4.2 (3.7) | --- 0-9 | --- 24.9 | --- 0.0 | --- 16.6 |
12. Changing communication style by using the screening instrument | 0(No changing)- 10(Changing) | --- 6 b | --- 1.5 (2.1) | --- 0-5 | --- 41.6 | --- 8.3 | --- 0.0 |
13. Feasibility of using the screening instrument during consultations for patients to bring up psychosocial problems | 0(Not feasible)- 10(Feasible) | --- 6 b | --- 3.8 (3.9) | --- 0-9 | --- 33.3 | --- 0.0 | --- 16.6 |
Open questions for remarks | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā | Ā |
14. Is there a subject that was missing from the screening instrument? | No-Yes, namely... | 2 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
15. Have you any remarks? | No-Yes, namely... | 2 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |