scholarly journals Communication and Shared Decision Making in the Breast Cancer Treatment Consultation: A Comparative Analysis of English- and Spanish-Speaking Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146831988165
Author(s):  
Marilyn M. Schapira ◽  
Arshia Faghri ◽  
Elizabeth A. Jacobs ◽  
Kathlyn E. Fletcher ◽  
Pamela S. Ganschow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test ◽  
English Speaking

Background. Communication in the breast cancer treatment consultation is complex. Language barriers may increase the challenge of achieving patient-centered communication and effective shared decision making. Design. We conducted a prospective cohort study among Spanish- and English-speaking women with stage 0 to 3 breast cancer in two urban medical centers in the Midwestern United States. Patient centeredness of care and decisional conflict were compared between Spanish- and English-speaking participants using the Interpersonal Processes of Care (IPC) and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), respectively. Clinician behaviors of shared decision making were assessed from consultation audio-recordings using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) scale. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to control for differences in baseline characteristics and clinician specialty. Results. Fifteen Spanish-speaking and 35 English-speaking patients were enrolled in the study. IPC scores (median, interquartile range [IQR]) were higher (less patient centered) in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants in the domains of lack of clarity (2.5, 1-3 v. 1.5, 1-2), P = 0.028; perceived discrimination (1.1, 1-1 v. 1.0, 1-1), P = 0.047; and disrespectful office staff (1.25, 1-2 v. 1.0, 1-1), P < 0.0005 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). OPTION scores (median, IQR) were lower in Spanish- versus English-speaking participants (21.9, 17.7-27.1 v. 31.3, 26.6-39.6), P = 0.001 (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). In multivariate analysis, statistically significant differences persisted in the IPC lack of clarity and disrespectful office staff between Spanish- and English-speaking groups. Conclusions. Our findings highlight challenges in cancer communication for Spanish-speaking patients, particularly with respect to perceived patient centeredness of communication. Further cross-cultural studies are needed to ensure effective communication and shared decision making in the cancer consultation.

scholarly journals Independent and Web-Based Advice for Infertile Patients Using Fertility Consult: Pilot Study (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleida Gerarda Huppelschoten ◽  
Jan Peter de Bruin ◽  
Jan AM Kremer
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Online Platform ◽  
Centered Care

BACKGROUND Patient-centered care—that is, care tailored to personal wishes and needs of patients—has become increasingly important. It is especially relevant in health care areas where patients suffer from a high burden of disease, such as fertility care. At present, both diagnosis and treatment for infertile couples is provided at a single hospital. As a consequence, patients are not likely to receive optimal, independent advice regarding their fertility problems. Internet-based, independent advice could be feasible for large groups of patients because it is not limited by travel distance and overhead costs. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of both patients and professionals with an online platform using video consultations for patients with infertility seeking independent advice for their fertility problem. METHODS This pilot study evaluated an online platform, Fertility Consult, where patients with infertility can get independent advice by a gynecologist through a video consultation, thus eliminating the need of meeting the doctor physically. Semistructured interviews were performed with 2 gynecologists and the chairman of the Dutch patients association. This information was used for a patients’ questionnaire about their first experiences with Fertility Consult, including questions about the level of patient-centeredness and shared decision making, using the Patient-Centered Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility) and the CollaboRATE questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS Of the first 27 patients enrolled at Fertility Consult, 22 responded (82%). Most patients (82%) visited Fertility Consult for a second opinion, seeking more personal attention and independent advice. The mean level of patient-centeredness on the PCQ-Infertility questionnaire was 2.78 (SD 0.58) on a scale of 0 to 3. For the CollaboRATE questionnaire (scale 0-9), patients provided a median score of 8.0 (range 7-9) on all 3 questions about shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS Patients were satisfied with independent, well-prepared, Web-based advice; health care professionals felt they were able to provide patients with proper advice in a manner befitting patients’ needs, without any loss of quality. Future studies should focus more on the separation of advice and treatment and on Web-based consultations compared with face-to-face consultations to ascertain the possibility of increased patient involvement in the process to improve the level of patient-centered care.

How to Provide Accessible Hearing Health Information to Promote Patient-Centered Care

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 173-180
Author(s):  
Rebecca Kelly-Campbell ◽  
Vinaya Manchaiah
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centeredness ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Hearing Health

Purpose This clinical focus article focuses on accessible hearing health information and is written in twofold. First, it outlines the connection between factors of patient-centered care, shared decision making, and health literacy on health outcomes. Second, it provides some practical strategies for providing and assessing accessible health information to promote patient-centeredness and shared decision making. Conclusion Health information accessibility will positively influence the treatment choices made by patients and the way in which they self-manage their health. Hearing health care professionals need to take proactive measures to ensure that the information provided in different mediums have easily readable language, adequate quality, suitability, understandability, and actionability to ensure accessibility of hearing health information.

Patient-centered pathology reports for breast cancer care: Interim results of a randomized pilot study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19157-e19157
Author(s):  
John L. Gore ◽  
Sara Javid ◽  
Elizabeth Austin ◽  
Mark Kilgore ◽  
Elizabeth Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Pathology Report ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Standard Report ◽  
Pathology Reports

e19157 Background: Receiving a new cancer diagnosis event is a daunting event, quickly followed by complex decision-making between patients and care teams. In order for patients to fully engage in shared decision-making with their providers, they must have access to understandable, patient-centered information that empowers them to take an active role. Yet cancer pathology reports currently target providers and are marred by complex medical terminology. To address this gap, we designed and piloted patient-centered pathology reports (PCPRs) for breast cancer surgical pathology. We hypothesized that PCPRs would result in patients having greater pathology knowledge and decisional self-efficacy. Methods: PCPRs were designed with continuous guidance from breast surgeons, pathologists, and patient advocates with the goal of providing a supplemental tool to translate standard pathology reports to layman’s terms for patients. PCPRs were built into the electronic medical record and tested for quality and accuracy over a 4-month period. Participants were recruited from the clinical practices of two breast surgeons and randomized to receive either the PCPR and standard pathology report or standard pathology report alone. Patients were surveyed at baseline and one month after to assess their breast cancer knowledge and ratings of confidence (scale 1-5) and decisional self-efficacy (DSE) for treatment decision-making (scale 0-100). Results: Of a planned 40 pilot patients, 30 have been enrolled, randomized (20 standard report patients, 10 PCPR patients), and have follow up data. Evaluation of patient knowledge showed that compared with the control group, patients who received a PCPR had similar knowledge of the important elements of their report (p = 0.10-p = 0.69) with greater specificity for those report elements. Confidence in their diagnosis slightly favored PCPR recipients (confidence rating mean 4.00 vs. 3.77 for control patients, p = 0.67). Patients receiving the PCPR had better DSE immediately after receipt of the pathology report than standard report patients (DSE 96.0 vs. 82.2, respectively, p = 0.05) with a more attenuated DSE difference one month later (DSE 87.3 vs. 79.2, respectively, p = 0.35). Conclusions: This interim analysis suggests that providing breast cancer patients with patient-centered pathology reports may contribute to an improved ability to engage in shared decision-making. Confirming these results with complete pilot data could inform a larger multicenter study to validate their effectiveness in clinical cancer care.

scholarly journals Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: Missed opportunities for shared decision making

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marleen Kunneman ◽  
Ellen G. Engelhardt ◽  
F. L. (Laura) ten Hove ◽  
Corrie A. M. Marijnen ◽  
Johanneke E. A. Portielje ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Missed Opportunities

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 2128
Author(s):  
Marta Maes-Carballo ◽  
Manuel Martín-Díaz ◽  
Luciano Mignini ◽  
Khalid Saeed Khan ◽  
Rubén Trigueros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Professional Societies ◽  
New Policies

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

Shared decision making for supporting women’s decisions about breast cancer screening

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Riganti ◽  
M. Victoria Ruiz Yanzi ◽  
Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay ◽  
Karin S Kopitowski ◽  
Juan VA Franco
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document