scholarly journals Shared decision-making – Rhetoric and reality: Women’s experiences and perceptions of adjuvant treatment decision-making for breast cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1082-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neda Mahmoodi ◽  
Sally Sargeant
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Women’S Experiences ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Women's Experiences

“It’s important to me”: A qualitative analysis of shared decision-making and patient preferences in early-stage breast cancer patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 227-227
Author(s):  
Valerie Lawhon ◽  
Rebecca England ◽  
Audrey S. Wallace ◽  
Courtney Williams ◽  
Stacey A. Ingram ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Preferences ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Early Stage Breast Cancer ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

227 Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when both patient and provider are involved in the treatment decision-making process. SDM allows patients to understand the pros and cons of different treatments while also helping them select the one that aligns with their care goals when multiple options are available. This qualitative study sought to understand different factors that influence early-stage breast cancer (EBC) patients’ approach in selecting treatment. Methods: This cross-sectional study included women with stage I-III EBC receiving treatment at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from 2017-2018. To understand SDM preferences, patients completed the Control Preferences Scale and a short demographic questionnaire. To understand patient’s values when choosing treatment, semi-structured interviews were conducted to capture patient preferences for making treatment decisions, including surgery, radiation, or systemic treatments. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Two coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method to identify major themes related to decision-making preferences. Results: Amongst the 33 women, the majority of patients (52%) desired shared responsibility in treatment decisions. 52% of patients were age 75+ and 48% of patients were age 65-74, with an average age of 74 (4.2 SD). 21% of patients were African American and 79% were Caucasian. Interviews revealed 19 recurrent treatment decision-making themes, including effectiveness, disease prognosis, physician and others’ opinions, side effects, logistics, personal responsibilites, ability to accomplish daily activities or larger goals, and spirituality. EBC patient preferences varied widely in regards to treatment decision-making. Conclusions: The variety of themes identified in the analysis indicate that there is a large amount of variability to what preferences are most crucial to patients. Providers should consider individual patient needs and desires rather than using a “one size fits all” approach when making treatment decisions. Findings from this study could aid in future SDM implementations.

scholarly journals Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 156-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind J McDougall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Value Judgements ◽  
The Relationship

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being developed for use in medicine, including for diagnosis and in treatment decision making. The use of AI in medical treatment raises many ethical issues that are yet to be explored in depth by bioethicists. In this paper, I focus specifically on the relationship between the ethical ideal of shared decision making and AI systems that generate treatment recommendations, using the example of IBM’s Watson for Oncology. I argue that use of this type of system creates both important risks and significant opportunities for promoting shared decision making. If value judgements are fixed and covert in AI systems, then we risk a shift back to more paternalistic medical care. However, if designed and used in an ethically informed way, AI could offer a potentially powerful way of supporting shared decision making. It could be used to incorporate explicit value reflection, promoting patient autonomy. In the context of medical treatment, we need value-flexible AI that can both respond to the values and treatment goals of individual patients and support clinicians to engage in shared decision making.

Shared decision-making, decision aids, and the role of values in treatment decision-making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amiram Gafni ◽  
Cathy Charles
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Conceptual Development ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Key Characteristics

Shared decision-making (SDM) between physicians and patients is often advocated as the ‘best’ approach to treatment decision-making in the clinical encounter. In this chapter we describe: (i) the key characteristics of a SDM approach; (ii) the clinical contexts for SDM; (iii) the definition and use of decision aids (DA), as well as their relationship to SDM; and (iv) the vexing problem of defining the meaning and role of values/preferences in treatment decision-making. Areas for further research and conceptual development are also suggested to help resolve outstanding issues in the above areas. Despite the widespread interest in promoting SDM, there does not seem to be as yet a universally accepted consensus on the meaning of this concept.

scholarly journals Patient and physician shared decision making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Bomhof-Roordink ◽  
Anne M. Stiggelbout ◽  
Fania R. Gärtner ◽  
Johanneke E.A. Portielje ◽  
Cor D. de Kroon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Rater Agreement ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

AbstractObjectivesWe have developed two questionnaires to assess the shared decision making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement.MethodsPhysicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire–physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, 9-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision making Effectiveness, and Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later.ResultsIn total, 151 treatment decision making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were >.60 for most items.ConclusionsThe iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement.Practice implicationsResults from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice.

scholarly journals “Will It Affect Our Chances of Having Children?” and Feeling “Like a Ticking Bomb” —The Fertility Concerns and Fears of Cancer Progression and Recurrence in Cancer Treatment Decision-Making Among Young Women Diagnosed With Gynaecological or Breast Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Sobota ◽  
Gozde Ozakinci
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Common Sense Model ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Model

Objective: Cancer treatment decision making process is particularly fraught with challenges for young women because the treatment can affect their reproductive potential. Among many factors affecting the process, fears of cancer progression and recurrence can also be important psychological factors. Our aim is to apply Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model to explore experiences of treatment decision-making women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer and the influence of fertility issues and fears of cancer progression and recurrence.Method: We conducted telephone interviews with 24 women who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer aged 18–45, who finished active treatment within 5 years prior to study enrolment and had no known evidence of cancer recurrence at the time of participation. They were recruited from three NHS oncology clinics in Scotland and online outlets of cancer charities and support organisations. We analysed the data using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method as it allows for both inductive and deductive analyses.Results: We identified five main themes pertaining to treatment-related decision-making experiences and fertility issues and fear of progression and recurrence: Becoming aware of infertility as a potential consequence of cancer treatment; Balancing-prioritising cancer and fertility; Decisions about treatments; Evaluation of treatment decisions; and The consequences of treatments. Sub-themes have also been reported. Different factors such as whether the cancer is breast or gynaecological, physicians' willingness of discussing fertility, influence of others in decision-making, childbearing and relationship status as well as fear of cancer recurrence emerged as important.Conclusion: The importance of physicians directly addressing fertility preservation in the process of treatment decision-making and not treating it as an “add-on” was evident. Satisfaction with treatment decisions depended on both the quality of the process of decision making and its outcome. Fear of recurrence was present in different parts of the adaptation process from illness perceptions to post-treatment evaluation of decisions. Both Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model were helpful in understanding and explaining young women's experience of treatment decision-making and fertility concerns.

Patient and surgeon correlates of shared decision making for surgical breast cancer treatment

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6031-6031
Author(s):  
S. Hawley ◽  
P. Lantz ◽  
B. Salem ◽  
A. Fagerlin ◽  
N. Janz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Right

6031 Background: The choice of surgical breast cancer treatment represents an opportunity for shared decision making (SDM), since both mastectomy and breast conserving surgery are viable options. Yet women vary in their desire for involvement in this decision. Correlates of SDM and/or the level of involvement in breast cancer surgical treatment decision-making are not known. Methods: Breast cancer patients of Detroit and Los Angeles SEER registries were mailed a questionnaire shortly after diagnosis in 2002 (N = 1,800, RR: 77%). Their responses were merged with a surgeon survey (N = 456, RR: 80%) for a dataset of 1,547 patients of 318 surgeons. Surgical treatment decision making was categorized into: 1) surgeon-based; 2) shared; or 3) patient-based. The concordance between a woman’s self-reported actual and desired decisional involvement was categorized as having more, less, or the right amount of involvement. Decision making and concordance were each analyzed as three-level dependent variables using multinomial logistic regression controlling for clustering within surgeons. Independent variables included patient clinical, treatment and demographic factors, surgeon demographic and practice-related factors, and a measure of surgeon-patient communication. Results: 37% of women reported the surgery decision was shared, 25% that it was surgeon-based, and 38% that it was patient-based. Two-thirds experienced the right amount of involvement, while 13% had less and 19% had more. Compared to women who reported a shared decision, those with surgeon-based decision were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely to have male surgeons, and those reporting a patient-based decision were more likely to have received mastectomy vs. breast conserving surgery. Women who were less involved in the surgery decision than they wanted were younger and had less education, while those with more involvement (vs. the right amount) more often had male surgeons. Patient-surgeon communication was associated with decisional involvement. Conclusions: Correlates of SDM and decisional involvement relating to surgical breast cancer treatment differ. Determining patients’ desired role in decision making may as important as achieving a shared decision for evaluating perceived quality of care. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Differences between women’s preferred and actual experience with ‘shared decision-making’: A mixed method study.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 34-34
Author(s):  
Deborah Ejem ◽  
J Nicholas Dionne-Odom ◽  
Danny Willis ◽  
Peter Kaufman ◽  
Laura Urquhart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Actual Experience ◽  
Decision Making Processes

34 Background: Women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) face numerous treatment and ACP decisions along their illness trajectory. We aimed to explore the treatment and ACP decision-making processes and decision support needs of women with MBC. Methods: Convergent, parallel mixed methods study (9/08-7/09). Sample included women with MBC managed by 3 breast oncologists at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH. Participants completed a semi-structured interview and standardized decision-making instruments (decision control preferences) at study enrollment (T1; n = 22) and when they faced a decision point or 3 months later (T2; n = 19), whichever came first. Results: Participants (n = 22) where all white, averaged 62 years and were mostly married (54%), retired (45%), had a ≥ bachelor’s degree (45%), and had incomes > $40,000 (50%). On the control preferences scale, most women reported a preference for a ‘shared decision’ with clinician (T1 = 14 (64%) vs T2 = 9 (47%)) compared to making the decision themselves (T1 = 6 (27%) vs T2 = 6 (32%)), or delegating the decision to their doctor (T1 = 2 (9%) vs T2 = 4 (21%)). In semi-structured interviews about their actual treatment decision-making experience, women described experiencing a passive or delegated rather than a shared decision-making process. Conversely, women described a much more active ACP decision-making process that was often shared with family rather than their oncologists. Conclusions: Women selected a “shared” process using a validated tool; however their descriptions of the treatment decision-making processes were inconsistent with their actual experience, which was a more passive process in which they followed the oncologists’ treatment suggestions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document