scholarly journals Shared decision-making and patient control in radiation oncology: Implications for patient satisfaction

Cancer ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (12) ◽  
pp. 1863-1870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob E. Shabason ◽  
Jun J. Mao ◽  
Eitan S. Frankel ◽  
Neha Vapiwala
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Control

Shared decision making in radiation oncology: Implications for patient satisfaction.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6610-6610
Author(s):  
Jacob Ezra Shabason ◽  
Jun J Mao ◽  
Eitan S. Frankel ◽  
Neha Vapiwala
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Targeted Interventions

6610 Background: Shared decision making (SDM) has been linked to healthcare quality outcomes, including patient satisfaction. However, the importance of SDM has not been evaluated in radiation oncology. This study aims to determine the association between patient-perceived SDM and patient satisfaction during radiation therapy (RT). We also explore patient desire for and perception of control during RT and its relationship to patient satisfaction. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 305 patients undergoing RT at an urban academic cancer center. Patients self-reported measures of satisfaction and control during the last week of RT. SDM was measured using a 3-item validated instrument. The relationships between SDM, control over treatment decisions, and satisfaction were evaluated using chi-2 analyses. Results: The 305 participants had a mean age of 59.8 (range 18-87) and were 47.5% female. Ethnicities included white (75.7%), black (19.7%), Asian (2.6%), and Hispanic (0.7%). Tumor types represented were breast (19.7%), prostate (17.7%), head and neck (18%), gastrointestinal (15.1%), lung (13.4%), and other cancers (16.1%). Ninety (31.3%) patients reported experiencing SDM and 227 (76.2%) reported feeling very satisfied with their treatments. There were no significant differences in these outcomes based on demographic or clinical characteristics. Patients who experienced SDM were more likely to be satisfied with the care provided by their radiation oncologist (84.4% vs. 71.4%, p <0.02). Furthermore, the perception of having control in treatment decisions was associated with increased satisfaction regardless of whether the patient preferred control or not (Table). Conclusions: These findings emphasize the value of SDM in radiation oncology. Regardless of a patient's desire for control, it is important for physicians to engage patients in the decision making process. Both physician- and patient-targeted interventions may aid in improving SDM and, in turn, overall satisfaction among radiation oncology patients. [Table: see text]

Bridging the Gap: A Priorities Assessment Tool to Support Shared Decision Making, Maximize Appointment Time, and Increase Patient Satisfaction in Women With Ovarian Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e148-e154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa K. Frey ◽  
Annie Ellis ◽  
Savannah Shyne ◽  
Ryan Kahn ◽  
Eloise Chapman-Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Feedback Form ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Symptom Index ◽  
Increase Patient Satisfaction

PURPOSE: Women with ovarian cancer identify patient-physician communication as an essential element in determining treatment course and believe a discussion about goals and values should precede treatment decisions. We sought to develop a patient-centered priorities assessment tool for women with ovarian cancer that could streamline communication, enhance treatment discussions, and increase patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a priorities assessment tool using a validated ovarian cancer symptom index (National Comprehensive Cancer Center–Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Symptom Index-18) combined with an index to assess daily quality-of-life priorities. The tool was distributed to women with ovarian cancer in small focus group settings and online, followed by a postactivity feedback form. RESULTS: In this pilot study, 36 women completed the priorities assessment tool and 35 completed the postactivity feedback form between September 2015 and May 2016. All participants reported that the tool was easy to understand and comprehensive in scope. Twenty-nine participants (82.9%) completed the tool in 10 minutes or less. Most participants (n = 31, 86.1%) were able to stratify their priorities and identify 5 top treatment-related priorities. Participants who indicated that their goals and priorities had changed since diagnosis (n = 25, 69.4%) reported that the tool helped to identify current goals and priorities (22 [88%] of 25 participants) and would help them feel more comfortable participating in shared decision making with their medical team (21 [84%] of 25 participants). CONCLUSION: A patient-centered priorities assessment tool was easy to complete and viewed as comprehensive and useful in a pilot cohort of women with ovarian cancer. Use of a priorities assessment tool has the potential to enhance communication, promote shared decision making, and improve patient satisfaction.

Informed Shared Decision-Making and Patient Satisfaction

2014 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 586-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjan G.J. Bot ◽  
Jeroen K.J. Bossen ◽  
James H. Herndon ◽  
David E. Ruchelsman ◽  
David Ring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

Shared Decision Making in Hernia Repair

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Szotek
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Synthetic Mesh ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Surgical Options

As the digital age of healthcare is evolving, patients are more aware, educated, and concerned about their surgical options due to access to information. Patients undergoing hernia repair are being exposed to the growing litigious environment surrounding mesh via targeted social media marketing and inorganic search engine optimization (paid SEO). As a result, we elected to implement a shared decision making (SDM) process to give our patients an active role in choosing the reinforcement material used in their repair. A cohort of 142 patients underwent the SDM process with 133 (93.7%) choosing the reinforced biologic repair (ReBAR), 8 patients (5.6%) chose permanent synthetic mesh and 1 patient (0.7%) chose a completely resorbable bio-synthetic mesh. Clinical outcomes have been similar before and after implementation of the SDM process. SDM, as has been shown in other fields of medicine, improved patient satisfaction, patient compliance, and decreased anxiety about the treatment plan. We believe that the implementation of a SDM process in hernia repair surgery will continue to result in increased patient satisfaction, reduce legal exposure, and warrants further investigation as the paradigms in the doctor-patient relationship continue to be disrupted by technology and the internet.

Validation of a Japanese Version of the Decision Regret Scale

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 44E-54E ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyomi Tanno ◽  
Seiji Bito ◽  
Yoh Isobe ◽  
Yasuo Takagi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Process ◽  
Japanese Version ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Gallbladder Polyps ◽  
Decision Regret ◽  
Inguinal Hernias

Background and Purpose: In Japanese health care, no current index measures patient satisfaction with decision making during the treatment process. Our research aimed to test a Japanese version of the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) for this purpose. Methods: We distributed a Japanese version of the DRS twice, 3 weeks apart, to 80 postoperative patients younger than the age of 85 years with inguinal hernias, cholelithiasis, cholecystitis, and gallbladder polyps. Results: The reliability (α = .85) and validity of the Japanese version of the DRS was demonstrated among postoperative patients. Conclusion: The Japanese version of the DRS will have significant implications for clinicians in improving their shared decision making with patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document