Shared decision making about opioid therapy for cancer patients: Do patients and providers take the same factors into consideration?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Maria J. Silveira ◽  
Karleen F Giannitrapani ◽  
Soraya Fereydooni ◽  
Azin Azarfar ◽  
Peter Glassman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Physician Time

32 Background: Many patients with cancerpain are appropriately managed on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), but are at similar risk of overdose and addiction as are patients with non-cancer pain. Whether to commence opioids for cancer pain is often a shared decision between patient and provider. Little is known about this process. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 20 cancer patients on LTOT and 20 interdisciplinary providers who prescribe LTOT from two VA medical centers. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using constant comparison to find common themes. Results: Providers and patients largely weighed the risks and benefits of LTOT similarly, except in the case of cancer patients with past/present substance use disorder (SUD). In those cases, providers felt the risks outweighed the benefits, while patients felt the benefits outweighed the risks. Generally, patients considered pain relief their overarching concern. Other factors that impacted their risk/benefit calculus included: personal/family experience with opioids and the opinions of trusted providers. Only rarely did patients defer decision making to providers. Factors that impacted the risk/benefit calculus of providers included: disease status, patient goals, patient characteristics, and providers' past experiences/biases. Of note, patients with past opioid exposure generally viewed their experience with opioids as positive, and usually anchored their risk assessment for opioids relative to those of chemotherapy. Patients also expressed that they would prefer to spend less physician time discussing LTOT and more time discussing cancer treatment instead. Conclusions: Patients and providers often agree on when it is appropriate to use LTOT for cancer pain. In cases where they disagree, providers are well advised to explore and address patients’ fears about the adequacy of pain management without opioids, as well as their lived experience with opioids. Patients are comfortable having such discussions with physician extenders in order to reserve face-to-face physician time to discuss cancer treatment instead.

How Patients and Providers Weigh the Risks and Benefits of Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Cancer Pain

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00679
Author(s):  
Karleen F. Giannitrapani ◽  
Soraya Fereydooni ◽  
Maria J. Silveira ◽  
Azin Azarfar ◽  
Peter A. Glassman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Patient Decision

PURPOSE: To understand how patients and providers weigh the risks and benefits of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for cancer pain. METHODS: Researchers used VA approved audio-recording devices to record interviews. ATLAS t.i., a qualitative analysis software, was used for analysis of transcribed interview data. Participants included 20 Veteran patients and 20 interdisciplinary providers from primary care– and oncology-based practice settings. We conducted semistructured interviews and analyzed transcripts used thematic qualitative methods. Interviews explored factors that affect decision making about appropriateness of LTOT for cancer related pain. We saturated themes for providers and patients separately. RESULTS: Factors affecting patient decision-making included influence from various information sources, persuasion from trusted providers, and sometimes deferral of the decision to their provider. Relative prioritization of pain management as the focal patient concern varied with some patients describing comparatively more fear of chemotherapy than opioid analgesics, comparatively more knowledge of opioids in relation to other drugs;patients expressed a preference to spend the limited time they have with their oncologist discussing cancer treatment rather than opioid use. Factors affecting provider decision making included prognosis, patient goals, patient characteristics, and provider experience and biases. Providers differed in how they weigh the relative importance of alleviating pain or avoiding opioids in the face of treating patients with cancer and histories of substance abuse. CONCLUSION: Divergent perspectives on factors need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Policies and interventions should be designed to reduce variation in practice to promote equal access to adequate pain management. Improved shared decision-making initiatives will take advantage of patient decision-making factors and priorities.

scholarly journals General practitioners’ role in shared decision-making about palliative cancer treatment: qualitative study

2021 ◽  
pp. BJGP.2021.0446
Author(s):  
Danique Bos-van den Hoek ◽  
Naomi van der Velden ◽  
Rozemarijn Huisman ◽  
Hannneke van Laarhoven ◽  
Dorien Tange ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study

Background: General practitioners (GPs) are well-positioned to enhance shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for patients with advanced cancer. However, to date, little is known about GPs’ views on their contribution to SDM. Aim: To explore GPs’ perspectives on their role in SDM about palliative cancer treatment and the preconditions to fulfil this role. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study among Dutch GPs. Method: GPs were sampled purposefully and conveniently. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis. Results: Most GPs reported practices that potentially support SDM: checking the quality of a decision, complementing SDM and enabling SDM. Even though most GPs felt that decision-making about systemic cancer treatment is primarily the oncologist’s responsibility, they do recognise their added value in the SDM-process because of their gatekeeper position, the additional opportunity they offer patients to discuss treatment decisions and their knowledge and experience as primary healthcare provider at the end of life. Preconditions for supporting the SDM-process were 1) good collaboration with oncologists, 2) sufficient information about the disease and its treatment, 3) sufficient time, 4) a trusting relationship with patients and 5) patient-centred communication. Conclusion: GPs may support SDM by checking the quality of a decision and by complementing and enabling the SDM-process to reach high quality decisions. This conceptualisation may help understand how SDM is carried out through interprofessional collaboration and provide tools for how to adopt a role in the interprofessional SDM-process.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making for Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Cancer Pain (SA528A)

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 453-454
Author(s):  
Karleen Giannitrapani ◽  
Azin Azarfar ◽  
Maria Silveira ◽  
Amanda Midboe ◽  
Peter Glassman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Shared Decision

Information behaviour and decision-making in patients during their cancer journey

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Chuan Chen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Alternative Therapy ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Method ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Information Behaviour ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

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.

It may help you to know. . .": The early phase qualitative development of a rheumatoid arthritis goal elicitation tool

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201615
Author(s):  
Julie Kahler ◽  
Ginnifer Mastarone ◽  
Rachel Matsumoto ◽  
Danielle ZuZero ◽  
Jacob Dougherty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Patient Goals

Objective Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include a patient-centered approach and shared decision making which includes a discussion of patient goals. We describe the iterative early development of a structured goal elicitation tool to facilitate goal communication for persons with RA and their clinicians. Methods Tool development occurred in three phases: 1) clinician feedback on the initial prototype during a communication training session; 2) semi-structured interviews with RA patients; and 3) community stakeholder feedback on elements of the goal elicitation tool in a group setting and electronically. Feedback was dynamically incorporated into the tool. Results Clinicians (n=15) and patients (n=10) provided feedback on the tool prototypes. Clinicians preferred a shorter tool de-emphasizing goals outside of their perceived treatment domain or available resources, highlighted the benefits of the tool to facilitate conversation but raised concern regarding current constraints of the clinic visit. Patients endorsed the utility of such a tool to support agenda setting and prepare for a visit. Clinicians, patients, and community stakeholders reported the tool was useful but identified barriers to implementation that the tool could itself resolve. Conclusion A goal elicitation tool for persons with RA and their clinicians was iteratively developed with feedback from multiple stakeholders. The tool can provide a structured way to communicate patient goals within a clinic visit and help overcome reported barriers, such as time constraints. Incorporating a structured communication tool to enhance goal communication and foster shared decision making may lead to improved outcomes and higher quality care in RA.

Shared decision-making for breast cancer patients

2013 ◽  
pp. 311-321
Author(s):  
Catharine Clay ◽  
Alice Andrews ◽  
Dale Vidal
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients

scholarly journals PD40-07 ADDRESSING HEALTH LITERACY IMPROVES SHARED DECISION MAKING IN UNDERSERVED AFRICAN AMERICAN PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 203 ◽  
pp. e817-e818
Author(s):  
Kerry Kilbridge ◽  
William Martin-Doyle* ◽  
Christopher Filson ◽  
Quoc-Dien Trinh ◽  
Sierra Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
African American ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Crafting Care That Fits: Workload and Capacity Assessments Complementing Decision Aids in Implementing Shared Decision Making (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H Wieringa ◽  
Manuel F Sanchez-Herrera ◽  
Nataly R Espinoza ◽  
Viet-Thi Tran ◽  
Kasey Boehmer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Minimally Disruptive Medicine ◽  
Workload Capacity

UNSTRUCTURED About 42% of adults have one or more chronic conditions and 23% have multiple chronic conditions. The coordination and integration of services for the management of patients living with multimorbidity is important for care to be efficient, safe, and less burdensome. Minimally disruptive medicine may optimize this coordination and integration. It is a patient-centered approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health by seeking care strategies that fit a patient’s context and are minimally disruptive and maximally supportive. The cumulative complexity model practically orients minimally disruptive medicine–based care. In this model, the patient workload-capacity imbalance is the central mechanism driving patient complexity. These elements should be accounted for when making decisions for patients with chronic conditions. Therefore, in addition to decision aids, which may guide shared decision making, we propose to discuss and clarify a potential workload-capacity imbalance.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena Graff ◽  
Justin T. Clapp ◽  
Sarah J. Heins ◽  
Jamison J. Chung ◽  
Madhavi Muralidharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Primary Knee Arthroplasty

Background Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia—e.g., through shared decision-making—are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. Methods This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. Results The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. Conclusions Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists’ attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients’ anxiety. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

scholarly journals An Exploratory Pilot Study to Describe Shared Decision-Making for PTSD Treatment Planning: The Provider Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 467-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bella Etingen ◽  
Jennifer N Hill ◽  
Laura J Miller ◽  
Alan Schwartz ◽  
Sherri L LaVela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Treatment Readiness ◽  
Ptsd Treatment

Abstract Objective To describe current practices used by Veterans Administration (VA) mental health (MH) providers involved in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment planning to support engagement of veterans with PTSD in shared decision-making (SDM). Methods Semi-structured interviews with MH providers (n = 9) were conducted at 1 large VA, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed deductively, guided by a published account of the integral SDM components for MH care. Results While discussing forming a cohesive team with patients, providers noted the importance of establishing rapport and assessing treatment readiness. Providers’ clinical knowledge/expertise, knowledge of the facility’s treatment options, knowledge of how to navigate the VA MH care system, and patient factors (goals/preferences, factors influencing treatment engagement) were noted as important to consider when patients and providers exchange information. When negotiating the treatment plan, providers indicated that conversations should include treatment recommendations and concurrent opportunities for personalization. They also emphasized the importance of discussions to finalize a mutually agreeable patient- and provider-informed treatment plan and measure treatment impact. Conclusion These results offer a preliminary understanding of VA MH providers’ facilitation of SDM for PTSD care. Findings may provide insights for MH providers who wish to engage patients with PTSD in SDM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document