scholarly journals Shared decision making and study participation in renal cancer care; the value of centralized multidisciplinary team consultation of the Amsterdam Renal Cancer Network

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. e222
Author(s):  
B.W. Lagerveld ◽  
A. Bex ◽  
T. Kuusk ◽  
K. Hendricksen ◽  
M.M.E.L Henderickx ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Jull ◽  
A. Hizaka ◽  
A. J. Sheppard ◽  
A. Kewayosh ◽  
P. Doering ◽  
...  

Background In relation to the general Canadian population, Inuit face increased cancer risks and barriers to health services use. In shared decision-making (sdm), health care providers and patients make health care decisions together. Enhanced participation in cancer care decisions is a need for Inuit. Integrated knowledge translation (kt) supports the development of research evidence that is likely to be patient-centred and applied in practice.Objective Using an integrated kt approach, we set out to promote the use of sdm by Inuit in cancer care.Methods An integrated kt study involving researchers with a Steering Committee of cancer care system partners who support Inuit in cancer care (“the team”) consisted of 2 theory-driven phases:■ using consensus-building methods to tailor a previously developed sdm strategy and developing training in the sdm strategy; and■ training community support workers (csws) in the sdm strategy and testing the sdm strategy with community members.Results The team developed a sdm strategy that included a workshop and a booklet with 6 questions for use by csws with patients. The sdm strategy (training and booklet) was finalized based on feedback from 5 urban-based Inuit csws who were recruited and trained in using the strategy. Trained csws were matched with 8 community members, and use of the sdm strategy was assessed during interviews, reported as 6 themes. Participants found the sdm strategy to be useful and feasible for use.Conclusions An integrated kt approach of structured research processes with partners developed a sdm strategy for use by Inuit in cancer care. Further work is needed to test the sdm strategy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21558-e21558
Author(s):  
Zackary Berger ◽  
Pooja Yesantharao ◽  
Alice Zhou ◽  
Amanda Blackford ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
...  

e21558 Background: Patient-physician communication is important to cancer care. The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship developed the Know Yourself Tool, a 2-page form, to improve patients’ understanding of goals of care and clinicians’ understanding of patients’ priorities/expectations. We assessed the Tool’s use and usefulness. Methods: This mixed-methods study at an academic cancer center recruited 1 medical, 1 radiation, and 1 surgical oncologist for each of 5 cancer types: breast, lung, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, head & neck. For each clinician (n = 15), we recruited 2 control patients to observe usual care (n = 30) and then 4 intervention patients who were provided the Tool (n = 60); eligible patients were at a decision point in their care. Data were collected for the decision making visit via patient and physician post-visit surveys analyzed descriptively and visit recordings/transcripts to analyze: 1) option presentation 2) patient preference assessment 3) shared decision making elements 4) patient question asking opportunities. Results: Of 90 patients, 39 (43%) were female and 75 (83%) were white. Of the 60 intervention patients, 42 (70%) completed a post-visit survey: 15 (36% of respondents) reported using the Tool and 13 (31%) discussing the Tool. Nearly half (49%) reported the Tool helped them prepare for follow-up visits and know the importance of their perspective in decision making. Patients reported the Tool was easy to use (76%) and would recommend the Tool to others (52%). Clinicians reported on Tool use for 24 visits, finding it most helpful in identifying areas of concern (74%). Based on visit transcripts, physicians were more likely to describe certain options as more appropriate than others with intervention vs control patients. However, physicians were less likely to assess patient preference, engage in shared decision making behaviors, and provide opportunities for patients to ask questions with intervention vs control patients. Conclusions: Use and usefulness of the Know Yourself Tool was limited. Further work should identify barriers to Tool use, determine if there are specific subgroups for whom the Tool would be more useful, and further elucidate how the Tool affects patient-clinician interactions.


2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis Butow ◽  
Martin Tattersall

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen A. McHorney ◽  
Lindsey T. Murray ◽  
Dayo Jagun ◽  
Jennifer Whiteley ◽  
Miriam Kimel ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which health care providers and patients relate to and influence each other as they collaborate in making decisions about patients’ health care. Hypothesized as a means to improve quality of care, successful applications of SDM in routine cancer care have not been widely documented. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to examine the literature to determine if elements of SDM implementation between cancer patients and their clinicians were more or less successful at improving the quality of care and health outcomes. METHODS A systematic literature search of SDM approaches and outcomes in cancer care was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. An integrative model for SDM was used to classify elements included in SDM intervention studies and the resulting outcomes. RESULTS From 1,018 unique publications, 23 articles meeting eligibility criteria were included. Only three studies addressed elements of patient-clinician interaction as part of the study objectives. Interventions included decision aid (DA) evaluation (n=22) and clinician communication training (n=1). SDM elements commonly included were: defining/explaining the problem (n=23); presenting options (n=19); discussing pros and cons (n=17); assessing patient priorities and preferences (n=17); clinician knowledge and recommendations (n=15); and making or deferring treatment decisions (n=12). The most frequently-measured outcomes were patient-reported outcomes including treatment preference or decision (n=12), decisional conflict (n=10), patient satisfaction (n=10), patient participation (n=9), and patient knowledge (n=7). No clear patterns demonstrating relationships between SDM elements and outcomes were identified. Information on how patients and clinicians utilized DA information to promote SDM was limited. CONCLUSIONS Evaluation of SDM in cancer care has been increasing. However, the term “SDM” was generally applied to studies that focused on the development and/or evaluation of DAs which limited the current analyses to a review of SDM elements as part of the DAs. Most studies did not include a qualitative or quantitative measure of SDM specific to patient-clinician communication and interaction. Instead, there was an underlying assumption that SDM occurred organically with DA implementation. Without a qualitative or quantitative measure of SDM, identification of successful SDM elements and their relationships to patient outcomes remains unclear. Additional research is warranted on SDM implementation and measurement in real-world cancer care settings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document