Literature DB >> 11281917

Eliciting patients' preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: development and validation of a bedside decision-making instrument in a French Regional Cancer Centre.

Marie-Odile Carrère1, Nora Moumjid-Ferdjaoui, Marie Charavel, Alain Brémond.   

Abstract

In developed countries, the physician-patient relationship is moving from a paternalistic model to new decision-making models that take patient preferences into account.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a Decision Board (DB) and to test its acceptability in a French Regional Cancer Centre regarding the decision on whether or not to use chemotherapy after surgery in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. This paper presents the development process for this instrument and reports the pretesting phase, as well as the corresponding results.
METHODS: A working group was created with oncologists, psychologists and economists. Following the first phase, i.e. the development process, a first version of the instrument was presented to health professionals. Their feedback led to important modifications of the instrument. The DB was then presented to experienced patients, which resulted in slight changes. The second phase consisted of pretesting the comprehension, internal and across-time consistency of the DB on healthy volunteers.
RESULTS: The DB was pretested in a group of 40 healthy volunteers. Eighteen respondents chose chemotherapy and 22 chose not to have chemotherapy. Comprehension rates were very high (>/=87.5%). Internal consistency was assessed considering option attitudes based on outcomes and option attitudes based on process. Women shifted their choices in a predictable way. Across-time consistency was appraised using the test-retest method with Visual Analog Scales. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.97. DISCUSSION-
CONCLUSION: Due to cultural differences, the DB developed in our French Cancer Centre is quite different from the DBs previously developed elsewhere. Our instrument showed good comprehension and consistency properties, which are corroborated by the DB literature. Whether our DB is acceptable for patients with breast cancer must still be tested. Patients' reactions will tell us which type of decision-making model is at work. Further research is needed in order to explore the shared decision-making process and clarify the concept.

Entities:  

Year:  2000        PMID: 11281917      PMCID: PMC5080957          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2000.00086.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  48 in total

1.  Reflections on the changing times.

Authors:  G Rose
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-10-03

2.  Patient involvement in health care. A procedural justice viewpoint.

Authors:  T E Hughes; L N Larson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?

Authors:  A Coulter; V Entwistle; D Gilbert
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-30

4.  When competent patients make irrational choices.

Authors:  D W Brock; S A Wartman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1990-05-31       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making.

Authors:  A Coulter
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1997-04

6.  Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation.

Authors:  H A Llewellyn-Thomas; M J McGreal; E C Thiel; S Fine; C Erlichman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  A patient decision aid regarding antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  M Man-Son-Hing; A Laupacis; A M O'Connor; J Biggs; E Drake; E Yetisir; R G Hart
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-25       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies.

Authors:  V A Entwistle; T A Sheldon; A Sowden; I S Watt
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.188

9.  Someone to live for: social well-being, parenthood status, and decision-making in oncology.

Authors:  S B Yellen; D F Cella
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Cancer patients: their desire for information and participation in treatment decisions.

Authors:  H J Sutherland; H A Llewellyn-Thomas; G A Lockwood; D L Tritchler; J E Till
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 18.000

View more
  7 in total

1.  Editorial.

Authors:  Vikki Entwistle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  From information to shared decision-making in medicine.

Authors:  Nora Moumjid; Alain Brémond; Marie-Odile Carrère
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  A systematic review of information in decision aids.

Authors:  Deb Feldman-Stewart; Sarah Brennenstuhl; Kathryn McIssac; Joan Austoker; Agathe Charvet; Paul Hewitson; Karen R Sepucha; Tim Whelan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Clinical issues in shared decision-making applied to breast cancer.

Authors:  Nora Moumjid; Marie-Odile Carrère; Marie Charavel; Alain Brémond
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  [Moroccan patient participation with cancer to therapeutic choice: results of a survey of 272 patients].

Authors:  Anwar Boukir; Ilham Azghari; Mustapha El Kabous; Khalid Jouid; Saber Boutayeb; Ibrahim El Ghissassi; Hind Mrabti; Hassan Errrihani
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2015-10-22

6.  Treatment-related experiences and preferences of patients with lung cancer: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Ines Aumann; Kristine Kreis; Kathrin Damm; Heiko Golpon; Tobias Welte; J Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-10-15       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  A qualitative exploration of treatment decision-making role preference in adult asthma patients.

Authors:  Ann-Louise Caress; Karen Luker; Ashley Woodcock; Kinta Beaver
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.377

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.