TY - JOUR
T1 - Treatment delay of cancer patients in Indonesia
T2 - A reflection from a national referral hospital
AU - Gondhowiardjo, Soehartati
AU - Hartanto, Sugandi
AU - Wirawan, Sigit
AU - Jayalie, Vito Filbert
AU - Astiti, Ida Ayu Putri
AU - Panigoro, Sonar Soni
AU - Sekarutami, Sri Mutya
AU - Rachman, Andhika
AU - Bachtiar, Adang
N1 - Funding Information:
Furthermore, patients who experienced a We found that all physician delays occurred in treatment delay also had more advanced-stage cancer. primary health care. Among 62 patients referred Locally-advanced and advanced stages had a higher from a primary health care, 18 patients (29.0%) chance of experiencing treatment delay (p<0.05) in experienced referral delay. Several studies have 46 and 31 breast and nasopharyngeal cancer patients, reported strategies to reduce the duration of referral. respectively. Smith et al²¹ showed a similar result that One of them is a protocol established by the Ministry stage III and IV breast cancer patients had a longer of Health of the United Kingdom that determines the treatment delay time. duration of referrals should not exceed 2 weeks. The Similar to the finding in this study, Yurdakul et National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence al 縃a found that the major cause of a patient delay in has introduced referral guidelines for primary care 1,016 patients with lung cancer in Turkey was a lack physicians regarding symptoms that would indicate a of knowledge (69.4%). This was supported by Majeed possible cancer condition. 缃缀 ?n addition, the physician et al 縃b that patient delay was mainly associated with and system delays found by Majeed et al 縃b were mainly a lack of knowledge and economic factors as well as because of delay in scheduling diagnostic tests as well difficulties in reaching healthcare facilities. as waiting time for definitive treatment. In Indonesia, alternative or traditional treatment Toftegaard et al34 and Fønhus et al35 showed that has been used continuously for generations. Data from a continuous medical education and patient-mediated the Basic Health Research (RISKESDAS) in 2018 showed information might lead to a higher number of cancer that 31.4% of households in Indonesia preferred visiting cases referral, reduction of cancer patients’ referral traditional healers, and 24.6% used herbal medicine. time, improvement of professional practice, and This percentage was slightly higher compared to increase of physicians’ adherence to a recommended that in 2013, with 30.4% of households preferred clinical practice. Smith et al²¹ showed that the period traditional healers over conventional medicine. 縃c from the first consultation to receiving definitive This study showed that alternative treatment were treatment was related to the survival rate of breast mainly chosen due to the patients’ anxiety to consult cancer patients. Treatment delay longer than 6 weeks or undergo a medical procedure (76.1%) and the decreased the survival rate of breast cancer patients. belief in alternative treatment to cure cancer (71.6%). When the definitive treatment was carried out 눃? Additionally, Mohd Mujar et al 缃簀 and Akhtar et al 缃? weeks, the survival rate of breast cancer patients was showed that the use of alternative treatment delayed 90%, whereas when the treatment was carried out >6 health-seeking behaviors among patients with breast weeks, it decreased to 80%.²¹ cancer in Malaysia and Bangladesh. A limitation of this study was that we did not Of 294 patients, 214 patients experienced conduct multivariate analyses, which could probably provider delay. The delay in treatment was also tackle important confounding factors such as cancer found in patients with more advanced-stage cancer. staging or age. Future studies may further explore the In 108 cervical cancer patients observed in this study, inclusion of these confounders into a regression model. early-stage cancer resulted in a lower incidence of Moreover, due to time constraints, we managed treatment delay (p<0.05). A median time interval of to recruit only 294 eligible samples during the time 唃嘃吀 days (range, 唃吃吂ȃ唃嘃夀 days) from the first pteimrieo da. However, this study could represent cancer patient sought medical consultation to underwent patients from all over Indonesia because the subjects cancer treatment was obtained from the duration were taken from a national referral hospital for cancer. of the delay. This result aligned with the study by In conclusion, this study showed high rates of Yurdakul et al 縃a that getting other opinions in the treatment delay in cancer patients either due to diagnosis by general practitioners (GPs) or primary patient or provider delays. This study sought insight health services was the major factor causing referral into cancer treatment delay in ?ndonesia, as reflected delay. This study found that delay in referral for by the data of a national referral hospital of Indonesia. breast cancer was rarely occurred. This might be due Other sociocultural factors such as age (oldest group to the presence of breast lump as the most common of >65 years old) and level of education (primary symptom of breast cancer, which reduced the referral school education level) may also influence patients’ duration among the patients. 缃? health seeking behavior. In reducing physician delay, providing medical education about cancer to the GPs is recommended. Adding diagnostic and cancer treatment devices in hospitals with a long diagnostic queue list may also help to reduce the waiting time. Further research is suggested to get a broader picture of the profile of delayed treatment in cancer patients, particularly in other centers. In addition, an interplay between risk factors and inclusion of several key confounders such as age or clinicopathological factors in assessing multivariate factors related to treatment delays and a further investigation of factors influencing older age (above 娃夀 years old) are needed.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Authors.
PY - 2021/6/30
Y1 - 2021/6/30
N2 - BACKGROUND Cancer is a complex disease requiring a multidisciplinary approach in establishing prompt diagnosis and treatment. Treatment in a timely manner is crucial for the outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to provide information on treatment delay including patient and provider delays and its associated factors. METHODS Cancer patients were recruited conveniently in the outpatient clinic of Department of Radiation Oncology, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Indonesia between May and August 2015. All patients were asked to fill a questionnaire and interviewed in this cross-sectional study. Treatment delay was explored and categorized into patient delay and provider delay. Patient delay could be happened before (patient-delay-1) or after (patient-delay-2) the patient was diagnosed with cancer. Provider delay could be due to physician, system-diagnosis, and system-treatment delays. RESULTS Among 294 patients, 86% patient had treatment delay. Patient delay was observed in 153 patients, and 43% of them had a history of alternative treatment. An older age (p = 0.047), lower educational level (p = 0.047), and history of alternative treatment (p<0.001) were associated with patient delay. Meanwhile, 214 patients had provider delay, and 9%, 36%, and 80% of them experienced physician, system-diagnosis, and system-treatment delays, respectively. All types of provider delay were associated with patient delay (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Most of the patient had treatment delay caused by either patient or provider.
AB - BACKGROUND Cancer is a complex disease requiring a multidisciplinary approach in establishing prompt diagnosis and treatment. Treatment in a timely manner is crucial for the outcomes. Hence, this study aimed to provide information on treatment delay including patient and provider delays and its associated factors. METHODS Cancer patients were recruited conveniently in the outpatient clinic of Department of Radiation Oncology, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Indonesia between May and August 2015. All patients were asked to fill a questionnaire and interviewed in this cross-sectional study. Treatment delay was explored and categorized into patient delay and provider delay. Patient delay could be happened before (patient-delay-1) or after (patient-delay-2) the patient was diagnosed with cancer. Provider delay could be due to physician, system-diagnosis, and system-treatment delays. RESULTS Among 294 patients, 86% patient had treatment delay. Patient delay was observed in 153 patients, and 43% of them had a history of alternative treatment. An older age (p = 0.047), lower educational level (p = 0.047), and history of alternative treatment (p<0.001) were associated with patient delay. Meanwhile, 214 patients had provider delay, and 9%, 36%, and 80% of them experienced physician, system-diagnosis, and system-treatment delays, respectively. All types of provider delay were associated with patient delay (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Most of the patient had treatment delay caused by either patient or provider.
KW - Cancer
KW - Indonesia
KW - Treatment delay
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85110729832&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.13181/mji.oa.204296
DO - 10.13181/mji.oa.204296
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85110729832
SN - 0853-1773
VL - 30
SP - 129
EP - 137
JO - Medical Journal of Indonesia
JF - Medical Journal of Indonesia
IS - 2
ER -