PURPOSE: Patients with more active roles in decisions are more satisfied and may have better health outcomes. Younger and better educated patients have more active roles in decisions, but whether patients' roles in decisions differ by characteristics of the decision itself is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed a large, population-based cohort of patients with recently diagnosed lung or colorectal cancer about their roles in decisions regarding surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess whether characteristics of the decision, including evidence about the treatment's benefit, whether the decision was likely preference-sensitive (palliative therapy for metastatic cancer), and treatment modality, influenced patients' roles in that decision. RESULTS: Of 10,939 decisions made by 5,383 patients, 38.9% were patient controlled, 43.6% were shared, and 17.5% were physician controlled. When there was good evidence to support a treatment, shared control was greatest; when evidence was uncertain, patient control was greatest; and when there was no evidence for or evidence against a treatment, physician control was greatest (overall P < .001). Decisions about treatments for metastatic cancers tended to be more physician controlled than other decisions (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients making decisions about treatments for which no evidence supports benefit and decisions about noncurative treatments reported more physician control, which suggests that patients may not want the responsibility of deciding on treatments that will not cure them. Better strategies for shared decision making may be needed when there is no evidence to support benefit of a treatment or when patients have terminal illnesses that cannot be cured.
PURPOSE:Patients with more active roles in decisions are more satisfied and may have better health outcomes. Younger and better educated patients have more active roles in decisions, but whether patients' roles in decisions differ by characteristics of the decision itself is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed a large, population-based cohort of patients with recently diagnosed lung or colorectal cancer about their roles in decisions regarding surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess whether characteristics of the decision, including evidence about the treatment's benefit, whether the decision was likely preference-sensitive (palliative therapy for metastatic cancer), and treatment modality, influenced patients' roles in that decision. RESULTS: Of 10,939 decisions made by 5,383 patients, 38.9% were patient controlled, 43.6% were shared, and 17.5% were physician controlled. When there was good evidence to support a treatment, shared control was greatest; when evidence was uncertain, patient control was greatest; and when there was no evidence for or evidence against a treatment, physician control was greatest (overall P < .001). Decisions about treatments for metastatic cancers tended to be more physician controlled than other decisions (P < .001). CONCLUSION:Patients making decisions about treatments for which no evidence supports benefit and decisions about noncurative treatments reported more physician control, which suggests that patients may not want the responsibility of deciding on treatments that will not cure them. Better strategies for shared decision making may be needed when there is no evidence to support benefit of a treatment or when patients have terminal illnesses that cannot be cured.
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Robert H Fletcher; Mona N Fouad; David P Harrington; Katherine L Kahn; Catarina I Kiefe; Joseph Lipscomb; Jennifer L Malin; Arnold L Potosky; Dawn T Provenzale; Robert S Sandler; Michelle van Ryn; Robert B Wallace; Jane C Weeks; Dee W West Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marjorie L Pearson; Patricia A Ganz; Kimberly McGuigan; Jennifer R Malin; John Adams; Katherine L Kahn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elyse R Park; Sandra J Japuntich; Nancy A Rigotti; Lara Traeger; Yulei He; Robert B Wallace; Jennifer L Malin; Jennifer P Zallen; Nancy L Keating Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jennifer W Mack; Angel Cronin; Nathan Taback; Haiden A Huskamp; Nancy L Keating; Jennifer L Malin; Craig C Earle; Jane C Weeks Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kenneth L Kehl; Mary Beth Landrum; Neeraj K Arora; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Andrew S Epstein; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Ali Shamseddine; Ashwaq Al-Olayan; Celina Ang; Mohamed Naghy; Maeve A Lowery; Eileen M O'Reilly Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2012-07
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Claudine Isaacs; George Luta; Shawna C Willey; Marc Boisvert; Felicity W K Harper; Karen Smith; Sara Horton; Minetta C Liu; Yvonne Jennings; Fikru Hirpa; Felicia Snead; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 4.872
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