OBJECTIVES: To collect normative data, assess differences between demographic groups, and indirectly compare US and Canadian medical systems relative to patient expectations of involvement in cancer treatment decision making. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: Individual patient data were compiled across 6 clinical studies among 3491 patients with cancer who completed the 2-item Control Preferences Scale indicating the roles they preferred versus actually experienced in treatment decision making. RESULTS: The roles in treatment decision making that patients preferred were 26% active, 49% collaborative, and 25% passive. The roles that patients reported actually experiencing were 30% active, 34% collaborative, and 36% passive. Roughly 61% of patients reported having their preferred role; only 6% experienced extreme discordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More men than women (66% vs 60%, P = .001) and more US patients than Canadian patients (84% vs 54%, P <.001) reported concordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More Canadian patients than US patients preferred and actually experienced (42% vs 18%, P <.001) passive roles. More women than men reported taking a passive role (40% vs 24%, P <.001). Older patients preferred and were more likely than younger patients to assume a passive role. CONCLUSIONS: Roughly half of the studied patients with cancer indicated that they preferred to have a collaborative relationship with physicians. Although most patients had the decision-making role they preferred, about 40% experienced discordance. This highlights the need for incorporation of individualized patient communication styles into treatment plans.
OBJECTIVES: To collect normative data, assess differences between demographic groups, and indirectly compare US and Canadian medical systems relative to patient expectations of involvement in cancer treatment decision making. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. METHODS: Individual patient data were compiled across 6 clinical studies among 3491 patients with cancer who completed the 2-item Control Preferences Scale indicating the roles they preferred versus actually experienced in treatment decision making. RESULTS: The roles in treatment decision making that patients preferred were 26% active, 49% collaborative, and 25% passive. The roles that patients reported actually experiencing were 30% active, 34% collaborative, and 36% passive. Roughly 61% of patients reported having their preferred role; only 6% experienced extreme discordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More men than women (66% vs 60%, P = .001) and more US patients than Canadian patients (84% vs 54%, P <.001) reported concordance between their preferred versus actual roles. More Canadian patients than US patients preferred and actually experienced (42% vs 18%, P <.001) passive roles. More women than men reported taking a passive role (40% vs 24%, P <.001). Older patients preferred and were more likely than younger patients to assume a passive role. CONCLUSIONS: Roughly half of the studied patients with cancer indicated that they preferred to have a collaborative relationship with physicians. Although most patients had the decision-making role they preferred, about 40% experienced discordance. This highlights the need for incorporation of individualized patient communication styles into treatment plans.
Authors: Teresa A Rummans; Matthew M Clark; Jeff A Sloan; Marlene H Frost; John Michael Bostwick; Pamela J Atherton; Mary E Johnson; Gail Gamble; Jarrett Richardson; Paul Brown; James Martensen; Janis Miller; Katherine Piderman; Mashele Huschka; Jean Girardi; Jean Hanson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Edward Guadagnoli; Mary Beth Landrum; Catherine Borbas; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lauren J Taylor; Michael J Nabozny; Nicole M Steffens; Jennifer L Tucholka; Karen J Brasel; Sara K Johnson; Amy Zelenski; Paul J Rathouz; Qianqian Zhao; Kristine L Kwekkeboom; Toby C Campbell; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Johannes Huber; Tanja Muck; Philipp Maatz; Bastian Keck; Paul Enders; Imad Maatouk; Andreas Ihrig Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Joseph D Tariman; Ardith Doorenbos; Karen G Schepp; Seema Singhal; Donna L Berry Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 2.172