Shared decision making in cancer care

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phyllis Butow ◽  
Martin Tattersall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals An integrated knowledge translation approach to develop a shared decision-making strategy for use by Inuit in cancer care: a qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Jull ◽  
A. Hizaka ◽  
A. J. Sheppard ◽  
A. Kewayosh ◽  
P. Doering ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Community Support ◽  
Integrated Knowledge Translation ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Integrated Knowledge

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.

Use and usefulness of the “know yourself” tool in outpatient cancer care.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21558-e21558
Author(s):  
Zackary Berger ◽  
Pooja Yesantharao ◽  
Alice Zhou ◽  
Amanda Blackford ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Tool Use ◽  
Patient Preference ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Preference Assessment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cancer Types ◽  
National Coalition

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.

scholarly journals A Systematic Literature Review of Shared Decision Making in Cancer Care (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen A. McHorney ◽  
Lindsey T. Murray ◽  
Dayo Jagun ◽  
Jennifer Whiteley ◽  
Miriam Kimel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Clinician Communication

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.

Are needs of stakeholders in cancer care being met? A novel approch to assessing needs to improve value in cancer care.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6581-6581
Author(s):  
Manali I. Patel ◽  
David Moore ◽  
Shannon Randolph ◽  
Heather A. Wakelee ◽  
Douglas W. Blayney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Unmet Needs ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Spending ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Improve Patient

6581 Background: Advanced cancer is a leading cause of death in the US. While treatments have improved, patients still report physical, emotional, and financial burdens associated with the disease. In order to improve cancer care, a comprehensive examination of unmet needs among patients, health care professionals, and other stakeholders is required to develop interventions that can improve patient outcomes, experience, and reduce healthcare spending. Methods: A national convenience sample of patients, families, caregivers, healthcare professionals, payer groups, and healthcare delivery systems who have experience with cancer care were selected for participation. A 10-question survey was administered to participants regarding their experiences with current cancer care. A novel combination of Grounded theory, Stanford d.school and bio-design needs-findings methodologies were used to assess and prioritize needs. Results: A total of 273 participants presented 99 unique needs over the study period. Needs were organized into five categories: 1. Monitor/Intervene Patient Clinical and Symptom Data 2. Shared Decision-Making 3. Best Practice Communication 4. Integrated Care Team 5. Patient-Tailored Care. The most common needs of cancer patients were improved symptom control. Needs among providers focused on minimizing tasks that could be performed by others. Payer needs reflected improved value in care. Family and caregiver needs reflected shared decision-making in treatment plans. Healthcare delivery system needs included improved guideline development, evidence-based care, and report of quality metrics. Conclusions: A novel methodology to assess, analyze, and organize unmet needs in cancer care reveals that the top concerns among stakeholders are better symptom control, enhanced efforts to improve patient care commensurate with patients’ values, and a more tailored approach to coordinate care delivery using guideline-based care with attention to quality metrics. Future studies should draw upon these needs to develop targeted interventions for patients with advanced cancer that can improve experience, clinical outcomes, and reduce healthcare spending.

scholarly journals Lessons in Integrating Shared Decision-Making Into Cancer Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 229-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karina Dahl Steffensen ◽  
Mette Vinter ◽  
Dorthe Crüger ◽  
Kathrina Dankl ◽  
Angela Coulter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Patient Reported

The benefits of shared decision-making (SDM) in health care delivery are well documented, but implementing SDM at the institutional level is challenging, particularly when patients have complex illnesses and care needs, as in cancer. Denmark’s Lillebaelt Hospital, in creating The Patient’s Cancer Hospital in Vejle, has learned key lessons in implementing SDM so that the organization’s culture is actually being transformed. In short, SDM is becoming part of the fabric of care, not a mere add-on to it. Specifically, the hospital chose and structured its leadership to ensure that SDM is constantly championed. It organized multiple demonstration projects focused on use of decision aids, patient-reported outcome measures, and better communication tools and practices. It designed programs to train clinicians in the art of doctor-patient communication. It used research evidence to inform development of the decision aids that its clinicians use with their patients. And it rigorously measured SDM performance in an ongoing fashion so that progress could be tracked and refined to ensure continuous improvement. Initial data on the institution’s SDM initiatives from the Danish national annual survey of patients’ experiences show substantial progress, thereby motivating Lillebaelt to reassert its commitment to the effort, to share what it has learned, and to invite dialogue among all cancer care organizations as they seek to fully integrate SDM in daily clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document