scholarly journals Chemotherapy treatment decision-making experiences of older adults with cancer, their family members, oncologists and family physicians: a mixed methods study

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine T. E. Puts ◽  
Schroder Sattar ◽  
Kara McWatters ◽  
Katherine Lee ◽  
Michael Kulik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Chemotherapy Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

What is the role of comorbidity, frailty, and functional status in the decision-making process for older adults with cancer and their family members, oncologists, and family physician?

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 92-92
Author(s):  
Martine Puts ◽  
Schroder Sattar ◽  
Kara McWatters ◽  
Katharine Lee ◽  
Michael Kulik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Family Physician ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Family Physicians ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

92 Background: Little is known about the treatment decision making process (TDMP) in older adults (OA) with cancer. The objective of this study is to develop a theoretical framework with the aim to improve the TDMP for this population. Methods: This is a mixed methods multi-perspective longitudinal study. OAs aged > 70 years with advanced prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, their family members, oncologists and family physicians are invited to participate in individual, semi-structured interviews. Each OA also completes a short survey to characterize their health, functional status, frailty level, decision-making preferences, and satisfaction with the TDMP. The sample is stratified on age (70-79 and 80+) to obtain data saturation for the oldest old. All interviews will be analyzed using the grounded-theory approach. Results: To date, 32 first interviews and 15 second interviews have been completed with 32 older adults, 21 family members and 12 family physicians and 7 cancer specialists. Interviews lasted between 10-60 minutes. Most older adults felt that they should have the final say in the treatment decision, but strongly valued their physician’s opinion. Most participants felt they received enough information, time and support from the oncologist to make their decision. About half the participants went to see their family physician to talk about the diagnosis and plan. Comorbidity and potential side-effects did not play a major role in the decision-making processes for patients and families but it did for oncologists. Family physicians reported they were not involved in treatment decisions, and they preferred more timely information about the patient. Conclusions: This study-in-progress is examining the TDMP from four different perspectives and examining changes over time in the TDMP. Patients and family members were generally satisfied with the treatment decision making process. Final results will be presented at the conference.

scholarly journals Prostatectomy versus radiotherapy for early-stage prostate cancer (PREPaRE) study: protocol for a mixed-methods study of treatment decision-making in men with localised prostate cancer

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e018403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Ben Smith ◽  
Pascal Mancuso ◽  
Mark Sidhom ◽  
Karen Wong ◽  
Megan Berry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Robotic Prostatectomy ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Curative Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

BackgroundMen diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) wanting curative treatment face a highly preference-sensitive choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy, which offer similar cure rates but different side effects. This study aims to determine the information, decision-making needs and preferences of men with LPC choosing between robotic prostatectomy and standard external beam or stereotactic radiotherapy.Methods and analysisThis study will be conducted at a large public teaching hospital in Australia offering the choice between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy from early 2017. Men (20–30) diagnosed with LPC who want curative treatment and meet criteria for either treatment will be invited to participate. In this mixed-methods study, patients will complete semistructured interviews before and after attending a combined clinic in which they consult a urologist and a radiation oncologist regarding treatment and four questionnaires (one before treatment decision-making and three after) assessing demographic and clinical characteristics, involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret. Combined clinic consultations will also be audio-recorded and clinicians will report their perceptions regarding patients’ suitability for, openness to and preferences for each treatment. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed and descriptive statistical analyses will explore quantitative decision-making outcomes, with comparison according to treatment choice.DiscussionResults from this study will inform how to best support men diagnosed with LPC deciding which curative treatment option best suits their needs and may identify the need for and content required in a decision aid to support these men.Ethics and disseminationAll participants will provide written informed consent. Data will be rigorously managed in accordance with national legislation. Results will be disseminated via presentations to both scientific and layperson audiences and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

scholarly journals Lay Referral Patterns Involved in Cardiac Treatment Decision Making Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults

2003 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. E. Schoenberg ◽  
C. H. Amey ◽  
E. P. Stoller ◽  
S. B. Muldoon
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Referral Patterns ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

Treatment decision-making for older adults with cancer: A qualitative study

2020 ◽  
pp. 096973302094575
Author(s):  
Ni Gong ◽  
Qianqian Du ◽  
Hongyu Lou ◽  
Yiheng Zhang ◽  
Hengying Fang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Chinese Society ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Family ◽  
Older Cancer Patients

Background: Independent decision-making is one of the basic rights of patients. However, in clinical practice, most older cancer patients’ treatment decisions are made by family members. Objective: This study attempted to analyze the treatment decision-making process and formation mechanism for older cancer patients within the special cultural context of Chinese medical practice. Method: A qualitative study was conducted. With the sample saturation principle, data collected by in-depth interviews with 17 family members and 12 patients were subjected to thematic analysis. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the ethics committees of Sun Yat-sen University. All participants provided verbal informed consent after being told their rights of confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntary participation. They had the right to refuse to answer questions and could withdraw at any time. Results: Three themes emerged: (1) complex process; (2) transformation of family decision-making power; and (3) individual compromise. Family members inevitably had different opinions during the long process of treatment decision-making for older cancer patients. The direction of this process could be regarded as an extension of the family power relationship. The patient usually compromised the decision to survive, which was made by family members. Conclusion: This study describes the treatment decision-making process of older cancer patients in the context of Chinese culture. The reasons underlying this process are related to the views on life and death and family values. An individual is a part of the family, which is often seen as the minimal interpersonal unit in Chinese society. It is significant that while emphasizing patient autonomy in the decision-making process, health professionals should also pay attention to the important roles of culture and family.

Integrating a touchscreen-based brief geriatric assessment in older adults with multiple myeloma.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21703-e21703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitya Nathwani ◽  
Supriya Gupta Mohile ◽  
Brea Lipe ◽  
Karen Carig ◽  
Laura DiGiovanni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Geriatric Assessment ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Activity Of Daily Living ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Frailty Score

e21703 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a disease of older adults (OAs) with > 60% of diagnoses and nearly 75% of deaths occurring in patients > 65 years old (YO). Geriatric Assessment (GA) is associated with toxicity and survival in OAs with MM, but not routinely used in practice. This project pilot tests a tablet-based modified Geriatric Assessment (mGA) that presents compiled GA results, including (the Palumbo) frailty score, to clinicians at a treatment decision-making visit in a single screen dashboard. Methods: In this multisite ongoing study, 210 patients with MM ≥65 YO facing a decision point for care will complete a mGA that includes the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Katz Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Score, and Lawton Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) Score prior to meeting with a physician. mGA results, including composite frailty score, are provided to physicians at the start of a visit. Results: Thirty-six patients have been enrolled to date; enrollment continues. Participants are 69% (n = 25) white, 64% (n = 23) male, and mean age of 72 YO (range 65-87). Most (74%, n = 20) currently receive ≥1 therapy and have few co-morbidities (CCI median 1, SD 1.95, range 0-8); 57% require assistance with IADLs and 37% require assistance with ADLs. Based on Palumbo score, 36% of participants were frail (n = 13), 33% intermediate (n = 12), and 31% fit (n = 11). Providers report mGA results influenced treatment decision (54%, n = 28) and frailty score was the most frequently cited result to impact treatment decision-making (61%, n = 39). The most common way the mCGA influenced decision-making was to reduce dose/dose intensity (25%, N = 8). Clinicians on average spent 5 minutesreviewing the mGA results. Patients reported an average of 7 minutes to complete the survey, most independently (83%, n = 30), and were satisfied with the electronic program overall (80%, n = 29), including how easy it was to use (88%, n = 32). Conclusions: Preliminary data support feasibility, usability, and acceptability of the tablet-based mGA and that frailty score influences provider decision-making ≥50% of the time. Future analyses will explore the relationship of the mGA with toxicity, dose modification and/or treatment discontinuation in OAs with MM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document