PURPOSE: Physicians hold opinions about unvoiced patient preferences, so-called substitute preferences. We studied whether doctors can predict preferences of patients supported with a decision aid. METHODS: A total of 150 patients with prostate cancer facing radiotherapy were included. After the initial consultation, without discussing any treatment choice, physicians gave substitute judgments for patients' decision-making and radiation dose preferences. Physicians knew that several weeks later, patients would be empowered by a decision aid supporting a choice between two radiation doses involving a trade-off between disease-free survival and adverse effects. Subsequently, patient preferences for decision making (whether or not they wanted to choose a radiation dose) and for treatment (low or high dose) were obtained. The chosen radiation dose actually was administered. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, 79% chose a treatment; physicians believed that 66% of the patients wanted to choose. Agreement was poor (64%; = 0.13; P = .11), and was better as patients became more hopeful (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4 per unit; P = .001) and as physicians' experience increased (OR = 1.09 per year; P = .02). Twenty percent of physicians' preferences, 51% of physicians' substitute preferences, and 71% of patients' preferences favored the lower dose; agreement was again poor (70%; = 0.2; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Physicians had problems predicting the preferences of patients empowered with a decision aid. They slightly underestimated patients' decision-making preferences, and underestimated patients' preferences for the less toxic treatment. Counseling might be improved by first informing patients-possibly using a decision aid--before discussing patient preferences.
PURPOSE: Physicians hold opinions about unvoiced patient preferences, so-called substitute preferences. We studied whether doctors can predict preferences of patients supported with a decision aid. METHODS: A total of 150 patients with prostate cancer facing radiotherapy were included. After the initial consultation, without discussing any treatment choice, physicians gave substitute judgments for patients' decision-making and radiation dose preferences. Physicians knew that several weeks later, patients would be empowered by a decision aid supporting a choice between two radiation doses involving a trade-off between disease-free survival and adverse effects. Subsequently, patient preferences for decision making (whether or not they wanted to choose a radiation dose) and for treatment (low or high dose) were obtained. The chosen radiation dose actually was administered. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, 79% chose a treatment; physicians believed that 66% of the patients wanted to choose. Agreement was poor (64%; = 0.13; P = .11), and was better as patients became more hopeful (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4 per unit; P = .001) and as physicians' experience increased (OR = 1.09 per year; P = .02). Twenty percent of physicians' preferences, 51% of physicians' substitute preferences, and 71% of patients' preferences favored the lower dose; agreement was again poor (70%; = 0.2; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Physicians had problems predicting the preferences of patients empowered with a decision aid. They slightly underestimated patients' decision-making preferences, and underestimated patients' preferences for the less toxic treatment. Counseling might be improved by first informing patients-possibly using a decision aid--before discussing patient preferences.
Authors: Laura D'Alimonte; Kaitlin Koo; Emily Chen; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Arlene Court; Margaret Fitch; Lisa Di Prospero; John Maamoun; Alex Kiss; Ewa Szumacher Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Petra G Boelens; Claire Taylor; Geoffrey Henning; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen; Eloy Espin; Theo Wiggers; Jola Gore-Booth; Barbara Moss; Vincenzo Valentini; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Patient Date: 2014 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Ines Vaz-Luis; Anne O'Neill; Karen Sepucha; Kathy D Miller; Emily Baker; Chau T Dang; Donald W Northfelt; Eric P Winer; George W Sledge; Bryan Schneider; Ann H Partridge Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hind A Beydoun; Ravinder Mohan; May A Beydoun; John Davis; Raymond Lance; Paul Schellhammer Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Alfred C Marcus; Michael A Diefenbach; Annette L Stanton; Suzanne M Miller; Linda Fleisher; Peter C Raich; Marion E Morra; Rosemarie Slevin Perocchia; Zung Vu Tran; Mary Anne Bright Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2013-02-28
Authors: James R Broughman; Ramsankar Basak; Matthew E Nielsen; Bryce B Reeve; Deborah S Usinger; Kiayni C Spearman; Paul A Godley; Ronald C Chen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 13.506