OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the clinical issues addressed during the medical encounter; (2) the feasibility of the process of shared decision-making in clinical practice and (3) patients' desires concerning the question of 'who should take the decision in breast cancer treatments?' DESIGN: Qualitative pilot study based on clinical encounters using decision boards and information booklets. SETTING: Centre Léon Bérard, a comprehensive cancer centre in the Rhône-Alpes region of France. PARTICIPANTS: One breast cancer surgeon and 22 breast cancer patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of patients' reactions to a shared decision-making process concerning surgery and chemotherapy, and analysis of its practical feasibility (i.e. duration of the consultations). RESULTS: (1) Twenty-one patients participated in the decision regarding surgery; all chose conservative treatment; 15 patients had their own say about chemotherapy (nine chose no chemotherapy, six chose chemotherapy). (2) Participating in treatment choice generated anxiety for a majority of patients. Some were dissatisfied because they had to make a choice and consequently to give up the other option. Finally, some were uncertain about making the right choice. Nevertheless, most were satisfied with the information given and the possibility of participating to the treatment decision-making process. (3) The total duration of the entire process of shared decision-making is consistent with the time spent with patients with such a severe disease. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Most of the patients expressed their satisfaction regarding the possibility to participate in treatment decision-making, knowing that offering treatment choice is very unusual in France. From this pilot study it appears that shared decision-making is feasible in clinical practice. Nevertheless, a quantitative study based on a large sample of patients is necessary to: (1) confirm this hypothesis, (2) ensure that patients are willing to participate in their treatment decision-making, and (3) measure the potential benefits related to this participation.
OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the clinical issues addressed during the medical encounter; (2) the feasibility of the process of shared decision-making in clinical practice and (3) patients' desires concerning the question of 'who should take the decision in breast cancer treatments?' DESIGN: Qualitative pilot study based on clinical encounters using decision boards and information booklets. SETTING: Centre Léon Bérard, a comprehensive cancer centre in the Rhône-Alpes region of France. PARTICIPANTS: One breast cancer surgeon and 22 breast cancerpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of patients' reactions to a shared decision-making process concerning surgery and chemotherapy, and analysis of its practical feasibility (i.e. duration of the consultations). RESULTS: (1) Twenty-one patients participated in the decision regarding surgery; all chose conservative treatment; 15 patients had their own say about chemotherapy (nine chose no chemotherapy, six chose chemotherapy). (2) Participating in treatment choice generated anxiety for a majority of patients. Some were dissatisfied because they had to make a choice and consequently to give up the other option. Finally, some were uncertain about making the right choice. Nevertheless, most were satisfied with the information given and the possibility of participating to the treatment decision-making process. (3) The total duration of the entire process of shared decision-making is consistent with the time spent with patients with such a severe disease. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Most of the patients expressed their satisfaction regarding the possibility to participate in treatment decision-making, knowing that offering treatment choice is very unusual in France. From this pilot study it appears that shared decision-making is feasible in clinical practice. Nevertheless, a quantitative study based on a large sample of patients is necessary to: (1) confirm this hypothesis, (2) ensure that patients are willing to participate in their treatment decision-making, and (3) measure the potential benefits related to this participation.
Authors: T Whelan; M Levine; A Gafni; K Sanders; A Willan; D Mirsky; D Schnider; D McCready; S Reid; A Kobylecky; K Reed Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G Macquart-Moulin; P Viens; M L Bouscary; D Genre; M Resbeut; G Gravis; J Camerlo; D Maraninchi; J P Moatti Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1997 Impact factor: 7.640
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