Literature DB >> 1596048

A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient's preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

M N Levine1, A Gafni, B Markham, D MacFarlane.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop an instrument to help clinicians inform patients with breast cancer of risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy as derived from clinical trials and to help the informed patient decide whether she prefers treatment or no treatment. The instrument consists of a visual aid (called the decision board) and written material. It provides detailed information on a patient's choices (chemotherapy or no chemotherapy), outcomes (recurrence or not), probabilities of outcomes and their meaning, and quality of life associated with treatment choice and outcome. The validity and reliability of the instrument were evaluated in 30 healthy female volunteers. It was first administered using standard estimates of recurrence for node-negative breast cancer (15% risk of recurrence without treatment, which is reduced to 10% with chemotherapy). A preference for treatment (or no treatment) was then elicited. The validity was evaluated by changing the information provided on risks and benefits and determining whether the preference changed in a predictable manner. To test for reliability, the instrument was administered 2 weeks later. Seventeen women chose chemotherapy and 13 chose no chemotherapy. In the former group, 14 women (82%) switched preference when the magnitude of benefit was reduced, and 16 (94%) switched when the toxicity of treatment was increased. For those women who chose not to receive chemotherapy, 12 (92%) switched when the benefit was increased and 100% switched when toxicity was eliminated. The reliability was excellent (kappa = 0.86). The instrument has been used to elicit treatment preferences in 37 newly presenting patients with high-risk, node-negative breast cancer and has been found to be acceptable and helpful to the patient.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1596048     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-117-1-53

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  55 in total

Review 1.  What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment?

Authors:  C Charles; T Whelan; A Gafni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  Development of a decision aid for atrial fibrillation who are considering antithrombotic therapy.

Authors:  M Man-Son-Hing; A Laupacis; A M O'Connor; R G Hart; G Feldman; J L Blackshear; D C Anderson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Breast cancer: clinical decision making.

Authors:  J D Hayes; E J Clark
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions.

Authors:  Cathy Charles; Amiram Gafni; Tim Whelan; Mary Ann O'Brien
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Development of an online, patient-centred decision aid for patients with oropharyngeal cancer in the transoral robotic surgery era.

Authors:  J S Lam; G M Scott; D A Palma; K Fung; A V Louie
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Willingness-to-pay utility assessment: feasibility of use in normative patient decision support systems.

Authors:  C R Flowers; A M Garber; M R Bergen; L A Lenert
Journal:  Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp       Date:  1997

7.  Communication with the seriously ill: physicians' attitudes in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  A F Mobeireek; F A al-Kassimi; S A al-Majid; A al-Shimemry
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Preventive therapies: weighing the pros and cons.

Authors:  A Laupacis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  How and when should physicians discuss clinical decisions with patients?

Authors:  S J Diem
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 10.  Determining resuscitation preferences of elderly inpatients: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Christopher Frank; Daren K Heyland; Benjamin Chen; Donald Farquhar; Kathryn Myers; Ken Iwaasa
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2003-10-14       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.