Literature DB >> 20945090

The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once.

Brian J Zikmund-Fisher1, Andrea M Angott, Peter A Ubel.   

Abstract

Breast cancer patients must often decide between multiple adjuvant therapy options to prevent cancer recurrence. Standard practice, as implemented in current decision support tools, is to present information about all options simultaneously, but psychology research suggests that sequential decision processes might improve decision making. We tested whether asking women to consider hormonal therapy and chemotherapy separately would improve women's risk knowledge and/or affect treatment intentions. We conducted an Internet-administered experimental survey of a demographically diverse sample of 1,781 women ages 40-74. Participants were randomized to experience a standard, comprehensive decision process versus sequential (one at a time) decisions regarding adjuvant therapy options for a hypothetical breast cancer patient with an estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumor. We assessed comprehension of key statistics, perceptions of treatment effectiveness, and perceived interest in adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as participants' numeracy levels. When participants made sequential decisions, they demonstrated greater comprehension of decision-relevant risk statistics, as compared to when they made decisions all at once (all P's < 0.001). Among higher-numeracy participants, those making sequential decisions were less interested in chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Lower-numeracy participants who considered all options simultaneously were insensitive to the degree of risk reduction, but those who made sequential decisions were sensitive (P = 0.03). In conclusion, presenting adjuvant therapy options sequentially improves women's comprehension of incremental treatment benefit and increases less numerate women's sensitivity to the magnitude of the achievable risk reduction over standard, all at once approaches. Sequential approaches to adjuvant therapy decisions may reduce use of chemotherapy among those at low risk for recurrence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20945090      PMCID: PMC3574293          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1193-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  21 in total

1.  Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; Nathan Dieckmann; Anna Dixon; Judith H Hibbard; C K Mertz
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.929

2.  Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Neil D Weinstein; Graham A Colditz; Karen M Emmons
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2007-03

3.  Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information.

Authors:  Pamela B Peele; Laura A Siminoff; Ying Xu; Peter M Ravdin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing?

Authors:  S S Iyengar; M R Lepper
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2000-12

5.  Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions.

Authors:  Deb Feldman-Stewart; Michael D Brundage; Vladimir Zotov
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Catharine Wang; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Impulsive decision making and working memory.

Authors:  John M Hinson; Tina L Jameson; Paul Whitney
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  "Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Angela Fagerlin; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Nahida H Gordon; Paula Silverman; Thomas Budd; Peter M Ravdin
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.894

10.  Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  23 in total

1.  Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication.

Authors:  Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 2.  Decision making and cancer.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2015 Feb-Mar

3.  Using visual displays to communicate risk of cancer to women from diverse race/ethnic backgrounds.

Authors:  Sabrina T Wong; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Sue E Kim; Steven E Gregorich; George F Sawaya; Judith M E Walsh; A Eugene Washington; Celia P Kaplan
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2012-01-12

4.  Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Ellen Peters; Peter Charpentier; Blair Olsen; Lanette Errante; Robert T Schoen; Valerie Reyna
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.794

5.  More Is Not Always Better: Intuitions About Effective Public Policy Can Lead to Unintended Consequences.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; William Klein; Annette Kaufman; Louise Meilleur; Anna Dixon
Journal:  Soc Issues Policy Rev       Date:  2013-01-01

6.  Improving communication of breast cancer recurrence risk.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Alice R Richman; Jessica T DeFrank; Valerie F Reyna; Lisa A Carey
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  How could disclosing incidental information from whole-genome sequencing affect patient behavior?

Authors:  Kurt D Christensen; Robert C Green
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.512

8.  Persuasive Interventions for Controversial Cancer Screening Recommendations: Testing a Novel Approach to Help Patients Make Evidence-Based Decisions.

Authors:  Barry G Saver; Kathleen M Mazor; Roger Luckmann; Sarah L Cutrona; Marcela Hayes; Tatyana Gorodetsky; Nancy Esparza; Gonzalo Bacigalupe
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 5.166

9.  Keeping the patient in the center: Common challenges in the practice of shared decision making.

Authors:  Kimberly A Fisher; Andy S L Tan; Daniel D Matlock; Barry Saver; Kathleen M Mazor; Arwen H Pieterse
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-08-06

10.  Physician communication styles in initial consultations for hematological cancer.

Authors:  Karan R Chhabra; Kathryn I Pollak; Stephanie J Lee; Anthony L Back; Roberta E Goldman; James A Tulsky
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-09-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.