OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients increasingly expect to be involved in treatment decision-making. We investigated factors that motivate cancer doctors to involve their patients in treatment decisions. METHODS: We conducted 22 telephone interviews with doctors treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological or prostate/urological cancer. Interviews probed doctors for attitudes to shared decision-making (SDM), views of when patient involvement is appropriate and what motivated them to encourage involvement. Interviews were audio-recorded. Themes were identified using framework analysis. RESULTS: Cancer doctors described disease, patient, doctor and societal influences on their support for patient involvement in treatment decisions. Treatment recommendations were described as 'clear-cut' or 'grey'. When treatment options were clear-cut, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life and self-image and the influence of consumer groups motivated doctors' support of patient involvement. CONCLUSION: Australian cancer doctors express differing support of patient involvement in decision-making dependent on context, impact and effect that involvement may have. Doctors described meeting patient involvement preferences as a challenge, and needing to identify different characteristics, anxiety levels and levels of understanding to guide them to involve patients in decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Models of shared decision-making may warrant refinement to better guide doctors to elicit and discuss information and involvement preferences.
OBJECTIVE:Cancerpatients increasingly expect to be involved in treatment decision-making. We investigated factors that motivate cancer doctors to involve their patients in treatment decisions. METHODS: We conducted 22 telephone interviews with doctors treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological or prostate/urological cancer. Interviews probed doctors for attitudes to shared decision-making (SDM), views of when patient involvement is appropriate and what motivated them to encourage involvement. Interviews were audio-recorded. Themes were identified using framework analysis. RESULTS:Cancer doctors described disease, patient, doctor and societal influences on their support for patient involvement in treatment decisions. Treatment recommendations were described as 'clear-cut' or 'grey'. When treatment options were clear-cut, the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life and self-image and the influence of consumer groups motivated doctors' support of patient involvement. CONCLUSION: Australian cancer doctors express differing support of patient involvement in decision-making dependent on context, impact and effect that involvement may have. Doctors described meeting patient involvement preferences as a challenge, and needing to identify different characteristics, anxiety levels and levels of understanding to guide them to involve patients in decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Models of shared decision-making may warrant refinement to better guide doctors to elicit and discuss information and involvement preferences.
Authors: Kristina Demas Woodhouse; Katie Tremont; Anil Vachani; Marilyn M Schapira; Neha Vapiwala; Charles B Simone; Abigail T Berman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Jan Willem H Leer; Carl J Wijburg; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Emile J van Lin; J Alfred Witjes; Peep F M Stalmeier Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: L Wenzel; D Mukamel; K Osann; L Havrilesky; L Sparks; J Lipscomb; A A Wright; J Walker; R Alvarez; L Van Le; K Robison; R Bristow; R Morgan; B J Rimel; H Ladd; S Hsieh; A Wahi; D Cohn Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-03-19 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: C Calderon; P J Ferrando; A Carmona-Bayonas; U Lorenzo-Seva; C Jara; C Beato; T García; A Ramchandani; B Castelo; M M Muñoz; S Garcia; O Higuera; M Mangas-Izquierdo; P Jimenez-Fonseca Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Sascha M Keij; Joyce E de Boer; Anne M Stiggelbout; Wändi Bruine de Bruin; Ellen Peters; Saïda Moaddine; Marleen Kunneman; Arwen H Pieterse Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Grace Clarke Hillyer; Dawn L Hershman; Lawrence H Kushi; Lois Lamerato; Christine B Ambrosone; Dana H Bovbjerg; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Sargam Rana; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Breast Date: 2012-10-27 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: S M Miller; S V Hudson; B L Egleston; S Manne; J S Buzaglo; K Devarajan; L Fleisher; J Millard; N Solarino; J Trinastic; N J Meropol Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Birte Berger-Höger; Katrin Liethmann; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Anke Steckelberg Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.796