Meeting the Decision-Making Preferences of Patients With Breast Cancer in Oncology Consultations: Impact on Decision-Related Outcomes

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 857-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Brown ◽  
Phyllis Butow ◽  
Maureen Wilson-Genderson ◽  
Juerg Bernhard ◽  
Karin Ribi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Preference Change ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Decisional Control ◽  
Breast Cancer Study ◽  
The Impact

Purpose To investigate how involvement preferences of patients with breast cancer change during the treatment decision-making process and determine the impact of meeting patients' expectations on decision-making outcomes. Patients and Methods Participants were 683 patients with breast cancer from 62 oncologists in five different countries recruited to an International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG 33-03) project. Questionnaires elicited patients' pre- and postconsultation preferences for involvement in treatment decision making and whether these were met or not. Decision-related outcomes were assessed postconsultation. Results Before the consultation, most patients preferred shared or patient-directed treatment decision making. After the consultation, 43% of patients' preferences changed, and most shifted toward patient-directed decisions. The actual postconsultation decision was more likely to be made according to postconsultation rather than preconsultation preferences. Compared with patients who were less involved than they had hoped to be, patients who were as involved as they had hoped to be or were even more involved in decision making had significantly better decision-related outcomes. This was true regardless of whether preference change occurred. Conclusion Many patients with early-stage breast cancer have treatment options and approach treatment decisions with a desire for decisional control, which may increase after their consultation. Patients' ultimate involvement preferences were more likely to be consistent with the way the decision was actually made, suggesting that patients need to feel concordance between their preference and the actual decision. Patients who directed decisions, even if more than they hoped for, fared better on all decision-related outcomes. These results emphasize the need for oncologists to endorse and facilitate patient participation in treatment decision making.

Women's Interest in Gene Expression Analysis for Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (29) ◽  
pp. 4628-4634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne C. O'Neill ◽  
Noel T. Brewer ◽  
Sarah E. Lillie ◽  
Edward F. Morrill ◽  
E. Claire Dees ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Recurrence Risk ◽  
Anticipated Regret ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Previously Treated

Purpose Genomic and other technologies are improving the accuracy with which clinicians can estimate risk for recurrence (RFR) of breast cancer and make judgments about potential benefits of chemotherapy. Little is known of how patients will respond to genomic RFR testing or interact with their physicians to make informed decisions regarding treatment. We assessed interest in genomic RFR testing and patient preferences for incorporating results into treatment decision making. Patients and Methods One hundred thirty-nine women previously treated for early-stage breast cancer completed surveys that presented hypothetical scenarios reflecting different test outcomes and potential decisions. We assessed women's attitudes toward RFR testing, how results would affect their choices about adjuvant treatment, and potential concerns about and perceived benefits of testing. Results The majority of participants said they would “definitely” want to be tested (76%), receive their results (87%), and discuss these results with their physicians. They were willing to pay, on average, $997 for testing. Those who expressed more concerns about testing were less interested in testing and in incorporating results into treatment decision making. Participants were more likely to want chemotherapy when presented with high-risk results and would worry more about those results. They were least likely to trust and most likely to express potential anticipated regret in response to intermediate RFR results. Conclusion Participants expressed strong interest in testing. Although these decisions were sensitive to RFR, participants’ complex reactions to intermediate RFR suggest care is needed when communicating such results.

“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.

The impact of “significant others” on breast cancer patients’ treatment decision making.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 20-20
Author(s):  
Suepattra G. May ◽  
Katharine Rendle ◽  
Meghan Halley ◽  
Nicole Ventre ◽  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Significant Others ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

20 Background: Shared medical decision making (SDM) has been lauded by advocates for its potential to democratize the patient-physician relationship. However, the practice of SDM is still conceived of as largely a dyadic moment that exists between the patient and the physician. Few studies have looked at the role of significant others (spouses, partners, family members and friends) in decision making or considered how discussions and actions outside the consultation room affect a patient’s medical decisions. This prospective study investigated the impact of significant others on the decision making deliberations of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Methods: Forty-one newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were interviewed at four critical time points throughout treatment to explore how they deliberated decisions with both care providers and significant others. Surveys assessing HRQOL, role preferences and treatment satisfaction along with EHR abstraction augmented interview data. Grounded theory analysis was used to identify recurrent themes in the qualitative data, and survey data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20. Results: Emergent themes from our analysis identified several factors that patients consider when faced with cancer treatment decisions, including 1) presentation of treatment options 2) patient or significant other conflict/concordance with care team recommendations 3) perceived risk of recurrence and 4) short and long term impact of treatment on daily life. Participants stressed the need for clinicians to view patients beyond diagnosis and recognize their larger care network as influential factors in their decision making. Conclusions: Our interviews highlight how the current healthcare delivery structure rarely acknowledges the circles of care that can exert influence on decision making. Lack of attention to non-clinical others can lead to sub-optimal medical decision making because these influences are not adequately understood by clinicians. Findings from this study suggest the need to enhance clinicians’ and researchers’ understanding of the influence of others in patients’ treatment decision making, enabling them to intervene in these practices.

Improving informed breast cancer systemic treatment decision-making.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 225-225
Author(s):  
Sarah T. Hawley ◽  
Larry An ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Reshma Jagsi ◽  
Steven J. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Early Stage Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Decision Tool ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

225 Background: Decision making for adjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly complicated for women with a new diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Few decision tools are designed to help support informed systemic treatment decision-making, by improving knowledge and decision quality. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a tailored, comprehensive (locoregional and systemic treatment) and interactive decision tool (iCanDecide), compared with static online information. 537 newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer patients were enrolled from 22 surgical practices. Participants were surveyed 5 weeks (N = 496; RR 92%) and those eligible for systemic treatment (N = 358) again at 9 months (N = 307; RR 88%). The main outcome for this analysis was knowledge about systemic treatment using 4 true/false items, categorized into high (3- 4 correct) vs. low (0-2 correct). We also assessed subjective decision quality (SDQ) for chemotherapy on a 5-point scale and dichotomized into high (4-5) vs. low (1-3) We evaluated the distribution of participants in each arm, and assessed the association between the study arm and the outcomes using bivariate and multivariable approaches. Results: Of the 358 respondents, 201 did not receive or intend to have chemotherapy. Significantly more intervention than control patients had high knowledge about systemic treatment (52.9% vs. 39.9%, p = 0.012). Overall SDQ for chemotherapy was slightly higher in intervention than control subjects (mean 4.8 vs. 4.6, p = 0.08). However, among women who did not receive chemotherapy, significantly more intervention subjects reported high SDQ than controls (87.1% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.06). Values significantly related to chemotherapy use included avoiding side effects, continuing to work, and being most extensive possible. Conclusions: We found that the interactive decision tool contributed significantly to higher knowledge about systemic treatment among eligible patients. We further found the tool shows promise for improving subjective decision quality, particularly in patients who choose not to have chemotherapy. Further work to integrate tools into the oncology clinical setting is needed. Clinical trial information: NCT01840163.

Shared Treatment Decision Making: What Does It Mean to Physicians?

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 932-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cathy A. Charles ◽  
Tim Whelan ◽  
Amiram Gafni ◽  
Andy Willan ◽  
Sylvia Farrell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Conceptual Tool ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Benefits

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document