Primary care provider-reported participation in breast cancer treatment decision making.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 78-78
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Chandler McLeod ◽  
Archana Radhakrishnan ◽  
Sarah T. Hawley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

78 Background: Surgical treatment decisions for early-stage breast cancer patients are complex and often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, with the increasing adoption of team-based cancer care models, it remains unknown to what extent primary care providers (PCPs) are participating in breast cancer treatment decisions and whether they feel they have enough knowledge to participate in these decisions effectively. Methods: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer patients who participated in iCanCare Study (Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries) were surveyed about their experiences caring for cancer patients (N = 519, 58% current response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed which surgery a patient should have, how comfortable they were with these discussions, whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making and their confidence in their ability to help with treatment decision making (5-item likert-type scales). The individual items were then categorized as somewhat/often/always vs. never/rarely for analyses. Results: In this preliminary sample, 62% of PCPs were not comfortable having a discussion about surgery options with a patient newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 41% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision-making, and 34% were not confident in the ability to help with treatment decision-making. One third (32%) of PCPs reported discussing surgical treatment options with their newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, but 22% of these PCPs also reported that they were not comfortable having these discussions and 16% reported they did not have necessary knowledge to participate in decision-making. Conclusions: A minority of PCPs participate in breast cancer treatment decision-making and there are notable gaps in their self-reported knowledge about decision-making and confidence in their ability to help with these decisions. Efforts to increase PCP knowledge about the specifics of cancer treatments may be warranted, but further research is needed to assess the impact of PCP participation on treatment decision-making outcomes.

scholarly journals Decision support networks of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 157-157
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Chandler McLeod ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Network Size ◽  
Support Networks ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

157 Background: Prior studies suggest that women often involve a network of family and friends in their cancer treatment decision making, yet very little is known about the size and characteristics of these decision support networks and whether their involvement leads to high-quality breast cancer treatment decisions. Methods: A weighted random sample of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014-15 as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,502, 70% response rate). Network size was estimated by asking women to list up to 3 of the most important decision support people (DSP) who helped them make their locoregional therapy decisions. Decision deliberation was measured using 4-items assessing degree to which patients thought through the decision, with higher scores reflecting more deliberative breast cancer treatment decisions. We compared the size of the network (0-3+ people) across patient-level characteristics and estimated the adjusted mean deliberation scores across levels of network size using multivariable linear regression. Results: Of the 2,502 women included in this analysis, 51% reported having at least 3 DSPs, 20% reported 2, 18% reported 1, and 10% reported not having any DSPs. Among women who were not partnered (N = 961), 51% had 3 DSPs, 18% had 2, 16% had 1 and 16% had 0 DSPs. Of the DSPs that the respondents identified, the majority were children (30%), followed by partners/spouses (23%), friends (15%), siblings (10%), other family members (6%), and parents (5%). Married/partnered women (p < 0.001), those younger than 45 years old (p < 0.001), those with more than 1 comorbidity (p < 0.001), and black women (p = 0.02) were all more likely to report larger networks on average. Larger support networks were associated with more deliberative surgical decisions (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this population-based sample, the majority of women engaged DSPs in their treatment decision making and for non-partnered patients, DSPs still played a key role in decision making. Larger size decision support networks were associated with higher quality decisions, underscoring the importance of efforts to identify and engage DSPs in the breast cancer decision making process.

Breast cancer patients' personality style, age, and treatment decision making

1996 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie D. Johnson ◽  
Cleora S. Roberts ◽  
Charles E. Cox ◽  
Douglas S. Reintgen ◽  
Judi S. Levine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Personality Style ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

The Significance of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Elisabeth Hillebrand ◽  
Ulrike Söling ◽  
Norbert Marschner
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Breast cancer is still the most common malignancy in women worldwide. Once metastasized, breast cancer treatment primarily aims at reducing symptom burden, thereby trying to maintain and improve a patient´s quality of life (QoL), delaying disease progression, and prolonging survival. Curing the disease is not possible in the palliative setting. To better understand metastatic breast cancer patients, their symptoms and wishes, which are important for treatment-decision making and outcome, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are of great importance, giving an impression of what really matters to and concerns a patient. Summary: Many advances have been made to implicate PROs in clinical trials, non-interventional studies, registries, and clinical routine care of metastatic breast cancer. For example, large phase III trials like PALOMA-3 (NCT01942135), MONALEESA-7 (NCT02278120), HER2CLIMB (NCT02614794), and KEYNOTE-119 (NCT02555657) trials implemented PROs in their trial design to assess the QoL of their trial patients. Also, non-interventional studies on metastatic breast cancer, like e.g., the NABUCCO study (IOM-02240), and prospective non-interventional, multicenter registries e.g., the tumor registry breast cancer (NCT01351584) or the breast cancer registry platform OPAL (NCT03417115), have implemented PROs to assess QoL during the anti-cancer treatment periods of the patients. Key Message: Using PROs in metastatic breast cancer can support shared treatment-decision making and management of symptoms, eventually leading to an improvement in QoL. Progressively, regulatory authorities take PROs into consideration for the approval of new drugs. Hence, the implication of PROs in cancer treatment, and especially in MBC, is of significant value.

Size and influence of the decision support networks of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18012-e18012
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Chandler McLeod ◽  
Ann S Hamilton ◽  
Kevin C. Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Network Size ◽  
Support Networks ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

e18012 Background: Little is known about the size and characteristics of informal decision support networks of women diagnosed with breast cancer and whether involvement of informal decision supporters (DSP) influences breast cancer treatment decisions. Methods: A population-based sample of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries in 2014-15 were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,502, 68% response rate). Network size was estimated by asking women to list up to 3 of the most important DSPs who helped them with locoregional therapy decisions. For each individual DSP listed, respondents reported how important each DSP’s opinion was in treatment decision making, and how satisfied they were with their involvement (5 pt. scales, “not at all” to “very”). Decision deliberation was measured using 5-items assessing degree patients thought through the decision, with higher scores reflecting more deliberative treatment decisions. We compared network size (0-3 or more) across patient-level characteristics and estimated the association between network size and deliberation using multivariable linear regression. Results: Of the 2,502 women in this analysis, 51% reported having 3 or more DSPs, 20% reported 2, 18% reported 1, and 11% reported not having any DSPs. Married/partnered women, those younger than 45 years old, and black women were all more likely to report larger networks (all p < 0.001). Partnered women most often reported their partner as their main DSP (37.9%), whereas not partnered/unmarried women most often reported children (38.4%). The majority of women were highly satisfied with their DSP being involved in their decisions (76.5%) and 68.6% felt their DSP was very important in their decision making. Larger support networks were associated with more deliberative surgical treatment decision-making (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Most women engaged multiple DSPs in their treatment decision making, including spouses, children, and friends. Involving more DSPs was associated with more deliberative treatment decisions. Future initiatives to improve breast cancer treatment decision making should acknowledge and engage informal DSPs.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document