Patient Education Practices and Preferences of Radiation Oncologists and Interprofessional Radiation Therapy Care Teams: A Mixed Methods Study Exploring Strategies for Effective Patient Education Delivery.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Patients' understanding of radiotherapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE.

MATERIALS/METHODS: An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. Fisher's exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses.

RESULTS: 113 ROECSG members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices amongst radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation vs simulation vs first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% vs 49.4% vs 56.3%, p<0.01 and paper handouts: 69.0% vs 28.7% vs 16.1%, p<0.01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content.

CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most utilizing institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.