Literature DB >> 15960689

Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer.

Paula M Lantz1, Nancy K Janz, Angela Fagerlin, Kendra Schwartz, Lihua Liu, Indu Lakhani, Barbara Salem, Steven J Katz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To better understand medical decision making in the context of "preference sensitive care," we investigated factors associated with breast cancer patients' satisfaction with the type of surgery received and with the decision process. DATA SOURCES/DATA COLLECTION: For a population-based sample of recently diagnosed breast cancer patients in the Detroit and Los Angeles metropolitan areas (N=1,633), demographic and clinical data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registry, and self-reported psychosocial and satisfaction data were obtained through a mailed survey (78.4 percent response rate). STUDY
DESIGN: Cross-sectional design in which multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with three satisfaction measures: low satisfaction with surgery type, low satisfaction with the decision process, and decision regret. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Overall, there were high levels of satisfaction with both surgery and the decision process, and low rates of decision regret. Ethnic minority women and those with low incomes were more likely to have low satisfaction or decision regret. In addition, the match between patient preferences regarding decision involvement and their actual level of involvement was a strong indicator of satisfaction and decision regret/ambivalence. While having less involvement than preferred was a significant indicator of low satisfaction and regret, having more involvement than preferred was also a risk factor. Women who received mastectomy without reconstruction were more likely to report low satisfaction with surgery (odds ratio [OR]=1.54, p<.05), low satisfaction with the process (OR=1.37, p<.05), and decision regret (OR=1.55, p<.05) compared with those receiving breast conserving surgery (BCS). An additional finding was that as patients' level of involvement in the decision process increased, the rate of mastectomy also increased (p<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of breast cancer patients experience a decision process that matches their preferences for participation, and report satisfaction with both the process and the outcome. However, women who report more involvement in the decision process are significantly less likely to receive a lumpectomy. Thus, increasing patient involvement in the decision process will not necessarily increase use of BCS or lead to greater satisfaction. The most salient aspect for satisfaction with the decision making process is the match between patients' preferences and experiences regarding participation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15960689      PMCID: PMC1361166          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00383.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  40 in total

1.  Treatment options for breast cancer--beyond survival.

Authors:  P A Ganz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-04-23       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Underutilization of breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy among women with stage I or II breast cancer.

Authors:  D A Lazovich; E White; D B Thomas; R E Moe
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-12-25       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Deciding on breast cancer treatment: a description of decision behavior.

Authors:  P F Pierce
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  1993 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.381

4.  From consumer choice to consumer welfare.

Authors:  C E Schneider
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1995 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.683

5.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.

Authors:  N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-03-03       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Statutory requirements for disclosure of breast cancer treatment alternatives.

Authors:  S G Nayfield; G C Bongiovanni; M H Alciati; R A Fischer; L Bergner
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1994-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Patient-physician concordance: preferences, perceptions, and factors influencing the breast cancer surgical decision.

Authors:  Nancy K Janz; Patricia A Wren; Laurel A Copeland; Julie C Lowery; Sherry L Goldfarb; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play?

Authors:  L F Degner; J A Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  Patient-centered medicine. A professional evolution.

Authors:  C Laine; F Davidoff
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-01-10       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease.

Authors:  S H Kaplan; S Greenfield; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  110 in total

1.  Disparities in short-term and long-term all-cause mortality among Korean cancer patients with and without preexisting disabilities: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Sang Min Park; Ki Young Son; Jae-Hyun Park; Belong Cho
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  A systematic review of large-scale surveys of cancer survivors conducted in North America, 2000-2011.

Authors:  Catherine C Lerro; Kevin D Stein; Tenbroeck Smith; Katherine S Virgo
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 4.442

3.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and screening test use in a large multispecialty primary care practice.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; Ronald Myers; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Does physician communication style impact patient report of decision quality for breast cancer treatment?

Authors:  Kathryn A Martinez; Ken Resnicow; Geoffrey C Williams; Marlene Silva; Paul Abrahamse; Dean A Shumway; Lauren P Wallner; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-06-22

5.  Population-based study of the relationship of treatment and sociodemographics on quality of life for early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Nancy K Janz; Mahasin Mujahid; Paula M Lantz; Angela Fagerlin; Barbara Salem; Monica Morrow; Dennis Deapen; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Women's preferences for and experiences with prenatal genetic testing decision making: Sociodemographic disparities in preference-concordant decision making.

Authors:  Fabiola Molina; Christine Dehlendorf; Steven E Gregorich; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-10-29

Review 7.  Preoperative patient education for breast reconstruction: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Beth Aviva Preminger; Valerie Lemaine; Isabel Sulimanoff; Andrea L Pusic; Colleen M McCarthy
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  The influence of race, ethnicity, and individual socioeconomic factors on breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

Authors:  Paula M Lantz; Mahasin Mujahid; Kendra Schwartz; Nancy K Janz; Angela Fagerlin; Barbara Salem; Lihua Liu; Dennis Deapen; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Breast cancer treatment decision-making: are we asking too much of patients?

Authors:  Jennifer C Livaudais; Rebeca Franco; Kezhen Fei; Nina A Bickell
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Patient assessments of the most important medical decision during a hospitalization.

Authors:  Thomas V Perneger; Agathe Charvet-Bérard; Arnaud Perrier
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.