A comparison of patient and physician attributes that promote patient involvement in treatment decision making in the oncology consultation

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6098-6098
Author(s):  
P. M. Ellis ◽  
S. J. Dimitry ◽  
M. A. O’Brien ◽  
C. A. Charles ◽  
T. J. Whelan

6098 Background: Cancer patients have indicted a desire to be more involved in treatment decision making (TDM). However, little is known about the attributes of patients, physicians and their interaction that promotes patient involvement in TDM in the oncology consultation. This study compared attributes generated by patients and physicians that make it easier for patients to be involved in TDM. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 19 patients with cancer (lung, breast, prostate, GI) and 21 medical and radiation oncologists at a regional cancer centre. Participants were asked to identify attributes of physicians, patients and their interaction that promotes patient involvement in TDM. Interview transcripts were independently coded by 2 analysts using decision rules to identify specific attributes. Attributes identified by each analyst were compared and a high level of agreement was found. The analysts then independently compared the physician and patient generated lists and identified common vs unique items. There was a high level of agreement on which attributes were common to both lists versus unique. Results: Oncologists identified 173 physician, 59 patient and 9 interaction items. Patients identified 50 physician, 42 patient and 11 interaction items. Patients and physicians identified 17 common physician items, 29 common patients items and 1 common interaction item. Physicians identified 138 more attributes than patients, most of which were physician related. Common patient attributes centred on information seeking (eg prepare for the consultation by reading, be aware of all treatment options and question the options). Common physician attributes focused on specific communication behaviors (eg, make eye contact, tailor information to patient needs, be direct with patients, ensure patient understands information). The common interaction item was to keep the discussion informal. Conclusions: Patients and physicians appear to have different ideas about what is important to promote patient involvement in TDM. Many of the attributes identified can be easily incorporated into current practice. There is a need to develop and evaluate communication skills training to promote patient involvement in TDM. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Chuan Chen

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the effect of cancer patients’ information behaviour on their decision-making at the diagnosis and treatment stages of their cancer journey. Patients’ information sources and their decision-making approaches were analyzed. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 participants. Findings The cancer patients sought information from various sources in choosing a hospital, physician, treatment method, diet and alternative therapy. Physicians were the primary information source. The patients’ approaches to treatment decision-making were diverse. An informed approach was adopted by nine patients, a paternalistic approach by four and a shared decision-making approach by only two. Practical implications In practice, the findings may assist hospitals and medical professionals in fostering pertinent interactions with patients. Originality/value The findings can enhance researcher understanding regarding the effect of cancer patients’ information behaviour on their decision-making.


2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1071-1078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian W. Sung ◽  
Christina A. Raker ◽  
Deborah L. Myers ◽  
Melissa A. Clark

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4787-4787
Author(s):  
Julie Olson ◽  
Shauna McManus ◽  
Melissa F. Miller ◽  
Thomas W. LeBlanc ◽  
Eva Yuen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Over the past decade, an increase in treatment options for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has dramatically changed the therapeutic landscape and has improved clinical outcomes. This abundance of treatment options may make it difficult for CML patients to feel knowledgeable about what options are available to them, may hinder patients' preparedness for having conversations about treatment, and, similarly, may contribute to patients feeling less involved in treatment decision making (TDM). In light of this changing landscape, we explored whether the TDM experience was linked to satisfaction with treatment outcomes in a national sample of CML patients. Methods: Using data from the Cancer Support Community's Cancer Experience Registry®, our analytic sample included 310 participants who reported CML as their primary diagnosis. The dependent variable in all analyses was a dichotomous, patient-reported indicator of satisfaction with treatment outcomes (satisfied or not satisfied). Our independent variables include three measures that capture the TDM experience: feeling involved in the TDM process; feeling knowledgeable about treatment options prior to making treatment decisions; and, feeling prepared to discuss treatment options with one's doctor. Respondents ranked TDM knowledge, preparedness, and involvement from 0 = "not at all" to 4 = "very much." Responses were dichotomized such that 1 = "quite a bit" or "very much" and 0 = "not at all," "a little bit" or "somewhat." Analytically, we compared patients who reported high satisfaction with treatment outcomes to those who reported low satisfaction, using Student's t-test. Then, we estimated multivariate logistic regression models predicting odds of being satisfied with treatment outcome by TDM knowledge, preparedness, and involvement. Regression models controlled for demographic characteristics including age, gender, and race; clinical factors such as time since diagnosis and symptom burden; treatment-related measures including financial impact of treatment; and the degree to which individuals felt their health care teams prepared them to manage treatment side effects. Results: Descriptively, our sample was 65% female and 87% non-Hispanic White, with an average age of 56.6 years (SD = 12) and mean time since diagnosis of 6 years (SD = 5). Most (74%) reported being "quite a bit" to "very much satisfied" with their treatment outcomes. Experiences with TDM, however, were variable. When making treatment decisions, 52% reported feeling involved, 41% reported feeling knowledgeable, and 21% felt prepared. Importantly, t-test results suggested that individuals with greater involvement, more knowledge, and higher preparedness were significantly more likely to report satisfaction with treatment outcomes. Results of the multivariate models demonstrated a greater likelihood of treatment satisfaction among individuals who felt prepared to discuss treatment options with their health care team, even after controlling for demographic, clinical, and treatment-related characteristics. In fact, prepared individuals were nearly 6 times as likely to be satisfied with their treatment outcomes, as compared to individuals who did not feel prepared to discuss treatment options (p < .05). Conclusion: Most of our patients with CML did not feel prepared to make treatment decisions. However, those who feel more prepared to discuss treatment options with their doctors are also more likely to report satisfaction with treatment outcomes. As new CML treatment options become available, our results highlight the need for an increased focus on shared decision making in clinical practice. This may necessitate providing patients with more resources to help prepare them for treatment-related conversations. Disclosures Birhiray: Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genomic Health: Patents & Royalties; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Puma: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Norvatis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli-Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Excelis: Speakers Bureau; Clovis Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Tessaro: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Helsinn: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi160-vi160
Author(s):  
Kristen Triebel ◽  
Kyler Maulhauser ◽  
John Fiveash ◽  
Dario Marrotta ◽  
Meredith Gammon ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVE To investigate medical decision-making capacity (MDC) in patients with advanced stage cancer. METHODS Participants were 113 newly diagnosed adults with brain metastases and 41 adults with metastatic cancer without brain metastases who were recruited from an academic medical center and 40 demographically-matched healthy controls recruited from the community. We evaluated MDC using the Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument (CCTI) Vignette B and its four clinically relevant consent standards (expressing a treatment choice, appreciation, reasoning, and understanding). Capacity impairment ratings (no impairment, mild/moderate impairment, and severe impairment) on the consent standards were also assigned to each participant using cutoff scores derived statistically from the performance of the control group. RESULTS Both of the metastatic cancer groups (with and without brain metastasis) performed significantly below controls on consent standards of understanding and reasoning. The brain metastasis group performed below the non-metastatic cancer group on understanding. Capacity compromise was defined as performance ≤1.5 standard deviations (SD) below the control group mean. Using this definition, approximately 65% of the participants with brain metastases and 51% of participants with metastatic cancer without brain metastases were impaired on at least one MDC standard. CONCLUSION Over half of participants with metastatic cancer regardless of whether they have brain disease have reduced capacity to make treatment decisions. The finding of impaired MDC in patients without brain metastases is surprising and suggests this group likely exhibits cognitive deficits that impact their ability to understand and reason about different treatment options. This finding suggests that clinicians need to carefully consider the patient’s ability to engage in treatment decision making when they are discussing treatment options for metastatic cancer. These results also indicate a need for the development and investigation of interventions to support MDC in this patient population.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 145-145
Author(s):  
Irene Prabhu Das ◽  
Heather Rozjabek ◽  
Mary L. Fennell ◽  
Katherine Mallin ◽  
E. Greer Gay ◽  
...  

145 Background: Patient involvement in treatment decision-making has been well-studied. However, little is known about how patients are involved in the MTP process prior to their consideration of treatment options. Methods: An online survey was administered to 1,261 Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited programs to describe current MTP practice. Survey items addressed team structure and process, case presentation, and patient involvement. A total of 797 (63%) facilities responded. Multiple aspects of patient involvement focusing on the initial case presentation and post-meeting follow-up regarding information provision and communication are examined. Initial descriptive analyses are presented. Results: 97% of facilities reported patients are not invited to attend MTP meetings. Reasons for not inviting patients included: patients may find it overwhelming (62%), physicians not able to speak freely (58%), liability (43%) and privacy (42%) concerns. Of the facilities that do invite patients, 1/3 reported that patients often or always attend. Treatment recommendations from MTP meetings are shared with patients at 75% of facilities, 42% share treatment plans, and 28% give a meeting summary to patients. Nine percent of facilities do not give patients any information from the meeting. Prior to treatment, a written treatment plan is developed at 43% of facilities, and among these, 15% give the plan to patients. Regarding communication about MTP meetings, facilities reported pre-meeting discussions with attending physicians (95%) and patient navigators (21%). Post-meeting follow-up by 93% of facilities is usually done by physicians, 26% by patient navigators and 16% by PA/NPs, and 66% follow-up within 1 week. Conclusions: Initial findings suggest that even if facilities do not invite patients to MTP meetings, they engage patients in various ways at pre- and post-MTP meetings, providing information and having discussions. Physicians are integral in communicating with patients throughout the MTP process. Further study on the multiple facets of patient involvement in MTP is needed to better understand its influence on treatment decision-making.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Nicole E. Nicksic ◽  
Melissa F. Miller ◽  
Kelly Clark ◽  
Alexandra Katherine Zaleta

57 Background: Treatment by a multidisciplinary healthcare team can improve patient outcomes, but not all prostate cancer (PC) patients may access multiple providers. This study explored whether differences in healthcare team at treatment were associated with PC treatment type and decision-making. Methods: Of 311 PC patients enrolled in the Cancer Support Community’s Cancer Experience Registry online, 160 (32% ever metastatic, 28% had recurrence, median 3 years since diagnosis) indicated which specialists comprised their healthcare team during treatment (urologist versus a specialist team including 2-5 doctors, 70% of which included urologists). We examined PC treatment decision-making using chi-square tests, independent sample t-tests, and linear regression. Results: The majority were not experiencing symptoms of PC at diagnosis (69%); 58% were diagnosed after a routine check-up. More PC patients with advanced disease at diagnosis had a team of specialists, whereas those diagnosed at stages 1 or 2 typically only saw a urologist ( p<0.01). Most first received care at a private urology practice (44%) compared to 27% for current treatment. Treatment discussions varied by treatment for urologist-only (28%) versus a team of specialists (72%): chemotherapy (16% vs 36%, p=.01), surgery (89% vs 65%, p<.01), radiation (82% vs 80%, p=.75), hormones (36% vs 75%, p<.001), and active surveillance (51% vs 23%, p<.001). More patients who had seen only a urologist had surgery (95% vs 43%, p<.001); those seeing a specialty team tended to undergo other treatments, such as chemotherapy (4% vs 30%, p=.001), radiation (12% vs 83%, p<.001), and hormones (27% vs 77%, p<.001). After controlling for stage at diagnosis, those treated only by a urologist had lower treatment regret ( β=0.22, p<.01). Conclusions: Advanced PC patients more often treated by a specialist team and discuss different treatment options vs. those followed by a urologist only. While effects were small, care provider type was associated with treatment regret and confidence. Healthcare teams could improve the patient experience by increasing communication surrounding navigating myriad treatment options. Clinical trial information: NCT02333604.


2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 932-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathy A. Charles ◽  
Tim Whelan ◽  
Amiram Gafni ◽  
Andy Willan ◽  
Sylvia Farrell

Purpose: Physicians are urged to practice shared treatment decision making (STDM), yet this concept is poorly understood. We developed a conceptual framework describing essential characteristics of a shared approach. This study assessed the degree of congruence in the meanings of STDM as described in the framework and as perceived by practicing physicians. Methods: A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was mailed to eligible Ontario medical and radiation oncologists and surgeons treating women with early-stage breast cancer. Open-ended and structured questions elicited physicians’ perceptions of shared decision making. Results: Most study physicians spontaneously described STDM using characteristics identified in the framework as essential to this concept. When presented with clinical examples in which the decision-making roles of physicians and patients were systematically varied, study physicians overwhelmingly identified example 4 as illustrating a shared approach. This example was deliberately constructed to depict STDM as defined in the framework. In addition, more than 85.0% of physicians identified as important to STDM specific patient and physician roles derived from the framework. These included the following: the physician gives information to the patient on treatment benefits and risks; the patient gives information to the physician about her values; the patient and physician discuss treatment options; both agree on the treatment to implement. Conclusion: Substantial congruence was found between the meaning of STDM as described in the framework and as perceived by study physicians. This supports use of the framework as a conceptual tool to guide research, compare different treatment decision-making approaches, clarify the meaning of STDM, and enhance its translation into practice.


2007 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah T. Hawley ◽  
Paula M. Lantz ◽  
Nancy K. Janz ◽  
Barbara Salem ◽  
Monica Morrow ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie-Anne Durand ◽  
Hilary L. Bekker ◽  
Anna Casula ◽  
Robert Elias ◽  
Alastair Ferraro ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document