A systematic scoping review of multidisciplinary cancer team and decision-making in the management of men with advanced prostate cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Holmes ◽  
B. D. Kelly ◽  
M. Perera ◽  
R. S. Eapen ◽  
D. M. Bolton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer

scholarly journals Factors underlying treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer in the U.S. and Canada: A scoping review using principal component analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Andkhoie ◽  
Desneige Meyer ◽  
Michael Szafron
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Principal Component Analysis ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Word Cloud

Introduction: The purpose of this research is to gather, collate, and identify key factors commonly studied in localized prostate cancer (LPC) treatment decision-making in Canada and the U.S.Methods: This scoping review uses five databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycInfo) to identify relevant articles using a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria applied by two reviewers. A list of topics describing the themes of the articles was extracted and key factors were identified using principal component analysis (PCA). A word cloud of titles and abstracts of the relevant articles was created to identify complementary results to the PCA.Results: This review identified 77 relevant articles describing 32 topics related to LPC treatment decision-making. The PCA grouped these 32 topics into five key factors commonly studied in LPC treatment decision-making: 1) treatment type; 2) socioeconomic/demographic characteristics; 3) personal reasons for treatment choice; 4) psychology of treatment decision experience; and 5) level of involvement in the decision-making process. The word cloud identified common phrases that were complementary to the factors identified through the PCA.Conclusions: This research identifies several possible factors impacting LPC treatment decision-making. Further research needs to be completed to determine the impact that these factors have in the LPC treatment decision-making experience.

scholarly journals Understanding Advanced Prostate Cancer Decision Making Utilizing an Interactive Decision Aid

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy A. Jones ◽  
Patricia J. Hollen ◽  
Jennifer Wenzel ◽  
Geoff Weiss ◽  
Daniel Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer

scholarly journals Employing a mobile health decision aid to improve decision-making for patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners/proxies: the CHAMPION randomized controlled trial study design

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lourdes R. Carhuapoma ◽  
Winter M. Thayer ◽  
Catherine E. Elmore ◽  
Jane Gildersleeve ◽  
Tanmay Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Minority Populations ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Metastatic prostate cancer remains a lethal malignancy that warrants novel supportive interventions for patients and their decision partners and proxies. Decision aids have been applied primarily to patients with localized disease, with minimal inclusion of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners. The use of a community patient navigator (CPN) has been shown to have a positive supportive role in health care, particularly with individuals from minority populations. Research is needed to evaluate decision support interventions tailored to the needs of advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners in diverse populations. Methods Guided by Janis and Mann’s Conflict Model of Decision Making, the Cancer Health Aid to Manage Preferences and Improve Outcomes through Navigation (CHAMPION) is a randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health (mHealth), CPN-administered decision support intervention designed to facilitate communication between patients, their decision partners, and the healthcare team. Adult prostate cancer patients and their decision partners at three mid-Atlantic hospitals in the USA were randomized to receive enhanced usual care or the decision intervention. The CHAMPION intervention includes a theory-based decision-making process tutorial, immediate and health-related quality of life graphical summaries over time (using mHealth), values clarification via a balance sheet procedure with the CPN support during difficult decisions, and facilitated discussions with providers to enhance informed, shared decision-making. Discussion The CHAMPION intervention is designed to leverage dynamic resources, such as CPN teams, mHealth technology, and theory-based information, to support decision-making for advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners. This intervention is intended to engage decision partners in addition to patients and represents a novel, sustainable, and scalable way to build on individual and community strengths. Patients from minority populations, in particular, may face unique challenges during clinical communication. CHAMPION emphasizes the inclusion of decision partners and CPNs as facilitators to help address these barriers to care. Thus, the CHAMPION intervention has the potential to positively impact patient and decision partner well-being by reducing decisional conflict and decision regret related to complex, treatment-based decisions, and to reduce cancer health disparities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT03327103. Registered on 31 October 2017—retrospectively registered. World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set included in Supplementary Materials.

Patient and clinician perspectives on treatment decision-making for African American men with prostate cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 186-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina A. Bickell ◽  
Sarah Abramson ◽  
Daniel Walker ◽  
Lindsey Sova ◽  
Jenny J Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
White Men ◽  
Diagnosis And Treatment ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

186 Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer for men in the US, yet the burden of this disease falls disproportionately on African Americans (AAs). The disparity’s etiology is complex. Surgery and radiotherapy offer similar survival but historically have different rates of performance with younger and white men more likely to undergo surgery and AAs more likely to experience underuse. This study aims to examine treatment decision-making (TDM) processes for AA men from patient and physician perspectives. Methods: At 1 academic and 1 municipal urban hospital, pathology records and a tumor registry from 2007-2012 were used to identify 359 AA and 282 white men with locally advanced prostate cancer, a Gleason score of 7-10, and receipt of definitive treatment. 15/17 treating physicians of participating patients were interviewed. Underuse overall was 4%, AA had higher rate of underuse compared to whites (6% vs. 1% respectively, p = 0.0002). 14 patients with longer times between diagnosis and treatment were recruited for 4 focus groups & 2 interviews lasting 60-90 minutes eliciting perspectives on themes related to TDM. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results: Preliminary analysis of patient interviews suggests that patients primarily base their treatment decisions on physician recommendations. Patients were often unaware of treatment side effects. However, some patients felt this deficit helped them decide to receive treatment, whereas if they had known about possible impotence and incontinence, they would have refused treatment. Physicians recognized that patient concerns about side effects were a critical TDM factor. Physicians attributed prolonged delays between diagnosis and treatment to waiting times for tests of possible tumor spread and medical comorbidities. Conclusions: Understanding decision making and care processes for AA men with local advanced prostate cancer is critical to reducing the treatment and outcome disparities in this population. This study identifies several patient and physician/system factors that contribute to this process. These data can help inform interventions to improve prostate cancer care for AA men.

scholarly journals No time for reflection: Patient experiences with treatment‐related decision‐making in advanced prostate cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 880-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mette Margrethe Løwe Netsey‐Afedo ◽  
Jette Ammentorp ◽  
Palle Jørn Sloth Osther ◽  
Regner Birkelund
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Patient Experiences

The Balance of Patient Involvement: Patients’ and Health Professionals’ Perspectives on Decision-Making in the Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-40
Author(s):  
Mette Margrethe Løwe ◽  
Palle Jörn Sloth Osther ◽  
Jette Ammentorp ◽  
Regner Birkelund
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Positive Effects

Research has shown that involving patients in decisions on treatment may have positive effects for patients. However, there are different understandings of what involving patients implies and different attitudes among physicians toward sharing decisions with patients. This study aimed to explore the attitude of patients with advanced prostate cancer to involvement in treatment decisions and physicians’ and nurses’ approach to patient involvement. Moreover, it aimed to explore whether the decision-making changes as the treatment course progresses. Data were collected through participant observations and interviews. It was found that treatment decisions are primarily considered as part of physicians’ role. Physicians’ attitudes to patient involvement in treatment decisions depended on the type of treatment. Among patients and health professionals, there was a lack of confidence in the ability of patients to participate in the decisions. Health professionals and patients have different attitudes toward patient involvement and different views on what it entails.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document