Satisfaction of breast cancer patients regarding surgery and radiation therapy: A survey in Japan

Purpose: To evaluate patient satisfaction in Japan and factors, including timing factors, cost, and specific medical practices derived from Western influence (shared decision-making and second opinion), which might affect satisfaction. Methods and materials: All patients who presented to 1 large Japanese department of radiation oncology for postoperative radiation therapy for breast cancer from September 2010 to November 2013 were included in this study. The questionnaire was distributed to patients after the radiation oncologist consultation, and patients were asked to complete it anonymously by the end of treatment. We measured patient satisfaction with overall treatment and for each treatment separately (surgery, radiation oncology). We further inquired regarding facts that could affect satisfaction, including time from diagnosis to treatment start, waiting time in waiting room for consultation, average length of consultations, out-of-pocket cost for breast cancer treatment, patients' opinion of the cost, level of inclusion of the patient in decision-making, level of the patient sharing her feelings with her physician, and whether the patients had asked for second opinion. Results: Of 364 patients surveyed, 214 (58.5%) responded. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with surgeon and with radiation oncologist were 95.7%, 98.5%, and 98.2%, respectively. Factors correlated with satisfaction were waiting time for the consult in the waiting room, treatment cost, and perceived degree of sharing feelings with physicians. Overall, 27 patients (12.6%) reported having asked for second opinions. Of those who did not seek a second opinion, most (173) indicated that they did not think it was necessary. Conclusions: In a large, typical Japanese radiation oncology practice, breast cancer patients' satisfaction correlated with waiting time, cost, and the rate with which the patient shared her feelings with her physician. This illuminates targets for quality improvement within the Japanese system and provides interesting cross-cultural comparative data for other countries in which the context of care may differ