Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study assesses residents' knowledge and practices on VTE prophylaxis among cancer patients, highlighting gaps in policy.
e22552 Background: The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is higher in individuals with cancer than in those without cancer across all age categories. Thromboembolism in people with cancer still remains a major health problem and is a leading cause of mortality after cancer itself, despite being a largely preventable disease. The study was conducted to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices of Quirino Memorial Medical Center residents towards venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among cancer patients. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional study design where in Quirino Memorial Medical Center residents were given with VTE knowledge, attitude and practices questionnaire adopted with permission from Mukisidi, et. al. used in the study published in Orient Journal of Medicine last 2016. The VTE knowledge was identified using frequencies and percentage. The Pearson’s chi-squared test of independence was used to test the association between the respondents’ categorical data and the groups. Results: Of the 100 respondents, 70% has satisfactory knowledge about VTE. Most (99%) believe that prophylaxis is clinically important among cancer patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, sixty-nine (69%) recognized that the institution has no formal VTE prophylaxis policy. Most of the respondents prescribed VTE prophylaxis and combination of different intervention (anticoagulants and compression stockings) is the most commonly used prophylaxis. Conclusions: Most of the residents in the Quirino Memorial Medical Center are knowledgeable about VTE and agreed that prophylactic measures were important for cancer patients but despite that, practice on VTE prophylaxis was sub-optimal and the contributory factor include absence of strong institutional policy/guidelines on VTE prophylaxis. These underscores the need for guidelines and improved attitude towards VTE prophylaxis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: