scholarly journals Factors influencing family involvement in treatment decision-making for older patients with cancer: A scoping review

Author(s):  
Bea L. Dijkman ◽  
Marie Louise Luttik ◽  
Hanneke Van der Wal-Huisman ◽  
Wolter Paans ◽  
Barbara L. van Leeuwen
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 418-430
Author(s):  
Eun Young Kim ◽  
Se Jin Hong

Purpose: This study was conducted to analyze and synthesize the findings of qualitative studies related to the decision-making experience of older patients with cancer in choosing treatment.Methods: We used the seven steps of Noblit and Hare’s meta-ethnography to analyze and synthesize selected qualitative studies. Seven databases were used to search the literature that explored the decision-making experiences of older patients with cancer in choosing treatment: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Research Informations Sharing Service (RISS), Koreastudies Information Service System (KISS), and National Assembly Library.Results: The final 11 studies were included in the analysis. Three themes emerged as result of synthesizing: “Checking the feasibility of treatment in one’s own life”, “The constant weighing up the gains and losses of treatment”, and “Having meanings to life”.Conclusion: This study provides an in-depth understanding of treatment decision-making experiences of older patients with cancer and highlights the complex factors that influence their treatment decision-making process. This may contribute to the development of interventions that help older patients with cancer choose treatment during the decision-making process.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Andkhoie ◽  
Desneige Meyer ◽  
Michael Szafron

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noralie H. Geessink ◽  
Yvonne Schoon ◽  
Hanneke C.P. van Herk ◽  
Harry van Goor ◽  
Marcel G.M. Olde Rikkert

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8519-8519 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. B. Elkin ◽  
S. Lee ◽  
E. S. Casper ◽  
D. Kissane ◽  
N. E. Kemeny ◽  
...  

8519 Background: Shared decision-making is a tenet of contemporary oncology practice. However, it is uncertain how involved elderly patients want to be in making treatment decisions and how physicians perceive patient preferences for involvement in decision-making. Methods: In structured interviews about multiple facets of chemotherapy treatment decision-making, we asked patients age 70 and older seen at our specialty cancer center with a recent diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) about their preferences for making treatment decisions. We used Degner’s control preference scale to measure patient preference for decision control. Treating oncologists described their perception of each patient’s preference for decision control using the same scale. Control preference was assessed in relation to socio-demographic characteristics and functional status. Results: Of 52 patients interviewed, the mean age was 76 years (range 70–89), 52% were male, 60% were educated beyond high school and 25% required some help with activities of daily living (ADL). Preferences for involvement in treatment decision-making demonstrated marked variation (Table). Compared with female patients, males expressed a stronger preference for decision control (p<0.05). Preference for decision control was somewhat greater in patients under age 80, those with more education, and those with no ADL impairment, but these associations were not statistically significant. In 26% of cases, the treating physician’s perception and the patient’s expressed preference for decision control were concordant. Conclusions: In older patients with advanced CRC, preference for control in treatment decision-making shows marked heterogeneity and some correlation with socio-demographic characteristics and functional status. Physicians’ perceptions of patient preference for decision control are often inconsistent with patients’ actual preferences. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bich Hue Lang-Hua ◽  
Colman P. J. McGrath ◽  
Edward C. M. Lo ◽  
Niklaus P. Lang

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2246-2246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kah Poh Loh ◽  
Sindhuja Kadambi ◽  
Supriya G. Mohile ◽  
Jason H. Mendler ◽  
Jane L. Liesveld ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Despite data supporting the safety and efficacy of treatment for many older adults with AML, <40% of adults aged ≥65 receive any leukemia-directed therapy. The reasons for why the majority of older patients with AML do not receive therapy are unclear. The use of objective fitness measures (e.g. physical function and cognition) has been shown to predict outcomes and may assist with treatment decision-making, but is underutilized. As most patients are initially evaluated in community practices, exploring clinical decision-making and the barriers to performing objective fitness assessments in the community oncology setting is critical to understanding current patterns of care. We conducted a qualitative study: 1) to identify factors that influence treatment decision making from the perspectives of the community oncologists and older patients with AML, and 2) to understand the barriers to performing objective fitness assessments among oncologists. The findings will help to inform the design of a larger study to assess real-life treatment decision-making among community oncologists and patients. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 community oncologists (9 states) and 9 patients aged ≥60 with AML at any stage of treatment to elicit potential factors that influence treatment decisions. Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinics in a single institution and oncologists were recruited via email using purposive samples (patients: based on treatment received and stage of treatment; oncologists: based on practice location). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We utilized directed content analysis and adapted the decision-making model introduced by Zafar et al. to serve as a framework for categorizing the factors at various levels. A codebook was provisionally developed. Using Atlas.ti, two investigators independently coded the initial transcripts and resolved any discrepancies through an iterative process. The coding scheme was subsequently applied to the rest of the transcripts by one coder. Results: Median age of the oncologists was 37 years (range 34-64); 62% were females, 92% were white, 38% had practiced more than 15 years, and 92% reported seeing <10 older patients with AML annually. Median age of the patients was 70 years (64-80), 33% were females and all were Caucasian. In terms of treatment, 66% received intensive induction therapy, 22% received low-intensity treatment, and 11% received both. Three patients also received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Eighty-nine percent were initially evaluated and 56% were initially treated by a community oncologist. Factors that influenced treatment decision-making are shown in Figure 1. When making treatment decisions, both patients and oncologists considered factors such as patient's overall health, chronological age, comorbidities, insurance coverage, treatment efficacy and tolerability, and distance to treatment center. Nonetheless, there were distinct factors considered by patients (e.g. quality of care and facility, trust in their oncologist/team) and by oncologists (e.g. local practice patterns, availability of transplant/clinical trials, their own clinical expertise and beliefs) when making treatment decisions. The majority of oncologists do not perform an objective assessment of fitness. Most common reasons provided included: 1) Do not add much to routine assessments (N=8), 2) Lack of time, resources, and expertise (N=7), 3) Lack of awareness of the tools or the evidence to support its use (N=4), 4) Specifics are not important (e.g. impairments are clinically apparent and further nuance is not necessarily helpful; N=5), 5) Impairments are usually performed by other team members (N=2), and 6) Do not want to rely on scores (N=2). Conclusions: Treatment decision-making for older patients with AML is complex and influenced by many factors at the patient, disease/treatment, physician, and organizational levels. Despite studies supporting the utility of objective fitness assessments, these were not commonly performed in the community due to several barriers. Our framework will be useful to guide a larger study to assess real-life treatment decision-making in the community settings. We also identified several barriers raised by community oncologists that could be targeted to allow incorporation of objective fitness assessments. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Liesveld: Onconova: Other: DSMB; Abbvie: Honoraria. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Majhail:Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Atara: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria. Wildes:Janssen: Research Funding. Klepin:Genentech Inc: Consultancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document