Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 20;9(3):241–248. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2017-100926

Table 3.

Adjusted percentage of negative experience

Question number Synoptic form of question Adjusted percentage of patients endorsing a negative experience Absolute difference across routes (max adjusted %−min adjusted %)
Emergency presentation Elective referral Two-Week-Wait referral Screening detection
 15 Written info on cancer diagnosis 45.4 27.4 22.7 14.2 31.2
 30 Staff explained operation—before 29.8 15.4 14.9 8.4 21.4
 20 Given name of specialist nurse 19.8 10.3 7.7 6.0 13.8
 13 Told diagnosis sensitively 21.8 17.8 12.7 9.3 12.5
 35 Confidence in hospital doctor 19.7 13.1 12.8 8.5 11.2
 43 Thought info withheld 19.4 14.0 11.2 11.0 8.4
 49 Written info at discharge 27.6 20.7 20.3 17.5 10.1
 32 Staff explained operation—after 30.3 22.3 21.4 19.5 10.8
 19 Shared decision-making 31.2 27.6 24.4 21.6 9.6
 40 Confidence in ward nurse 39.8 40.0 35.9 30.9 9.1
 18 Written info about treatment side effects 15.3 14.2 11.8 11.1 4.2
 63 Information given to general practitioner 7.6 5.6 6.5 5.5 2.1
 51 Self-management info post-discharge family/others 45.5 42.4 41.8 36.9 8.6
 65 Cancer care integration 40.2 40.4 36.0 32.3 8.1
 64 General practice staff support 29.9 31.9 26.0 31.0 5.9
 60 Waiting time as outpatient 31.5 31.1 28.2 25.6 5.9
 21 Ease of contacting specialist nurse 19.8 22.8 22.0 20.1 2.7
 58 Emotional support as outpatient 26.7 26.7 25.3 24.8 1.9

Bold/Italic fonts in the last column denote p≤0.02 for variation across all (four) routes (see also footnote of table 2).

In columns 3-6, underlined values denote the route associated with the worse experience and values in bold fonts the route associated with best experience.