OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the degree to which the partners of prostate cancer patients participate in the shared decision-making process with the patients' providers during the time between diagnosis and initiating treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We recruited patients with newly diagnosed local-stage prostate cancer and their partners to complete take-home surveys after biopsy but before initiating treatment at urology practices in three states. • We asked partners to describe their roles in the decision-making process, including participation in clinic visits, and perceptions of encouragement from providers to participate in the treatment decision-making process. We also asked partners to rate their satisfaction with the patients' providers. RESULTS: • Family members of 80% of newly diagnosed patients agreed to participate; most (93%) were partners (i.e. spouses or significant others). Most partners (93%) had direct contact with the patients' physicians. • Among the partners who had contact with providers, most (67%) were very satisfied with the patients' providers and 80% indicated that the doctor encouraged them to participate in the treatment decision. Overall, 91% of partners reported very frequent discussions with their loved one about the pending treatment decision, and 69% reported that their role was to help the patient make a decision. • In multivariate models, provider encouragement of partner participation was associated with higher partner satisfaction (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.4-8.4) and an increased likelihood of partners reporting very frequent discussions with their loved one (odds ratio 6.1, 95% CI 1.3-27.7). CONCLUSIONS: • Partners often attended clinic visits and were very involved in discussions about treatment options with both loved ones and providers. • Provider encouragement of participation by partners greatly facilitates shared decision-making between patients and partners.
OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the degree to which the partners of prostate cancerpatients participate in the shared decision-making process with the patients' providers during the time between diagnosis and initiating treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • We recruited patients with newly diagnosed local-stage prostate cancer and their partners to complete take-home surveys after biopsy but before initiating treatment at urology practices in three states. • We asked partners to describe their roles in the decision-making process, including participation in clinic visits, and perceptions of encouragement from providers to participate in the treatment decision-making process. We also asked partners to rate their satisfaction with the patients' providers. RESULTS: • Family members of 80% of newly diagnosed patients agreed to participate; most (93%) were partners (i.e. spouses or significant others). Most partners (93%) had direct contact with the patients' physicians. • Among the partners who had contact with providers, most (67%) were very satisfied with the patients' providers and 80% indicated that the doctor encouraged them to participate in the treatment decision. Overall, 91% of partners reported very frequent discussions with their loved one about the pending treatment decision, and 69% reported that their role was to help the patient make a decision. • In multivariate models, provider encouragement of partner participation was associated with higher partner satisfaction (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.4-8.4) and an increased likelihood of partners reporting very frequent discussions with their loved one (odds ratio 6.1, 95% CI 1.3-27.7). CONCLUSIONS: • Partners often attended clinic visits and were very involved in discussions about treatment options with both loved ones and providers. • Provider encouragement of participation by partners greatly facilitates shared decision-making between patients and partners.
Authors: Thomas A D'Agostino; Elyse Shuk; Erin K Maloney; Rebecca Zeuren; R Michael Tuttle; Carma L Bylund Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Yael Symes; Lixin Song; Rachael G Heineman; Brittney D Barbosa; Kimberly Tatum; Giselle Greene; Mark Weaver; Ronald C Chen Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Steven B Zeliadt; David K Blough; Carol M Moinpour; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Catherine R Fedorenko; Megan E Fairweather; Lisel M Koepl; Ian M Thompson; Thomas E Keane; David F Penson Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Aasthaa Bansal; Lisel M Koepl; Catherine R Fedorenko; Chunyu Li; Judith Lee Smith; Ingrid J Hall; David F Penson; Scott D Ramsey Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Catherine R Fedorenko; Karma Kreizenbeck; Aasthaa Bansal; Ian M Thompson; David F Penson Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Lixin Song; Christina Tyler; Margaret F Clayton; Eleanor Rodgiriguez-Rassi; Latorya Hill; Jinbing Bai; Raj Pruthi; Donald E Bailey Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-09-23
Authors: Yen-Chi L Le; Stephanie L McFall; Theresa L Byrd; Robert J Volk; Scott B Cantor; Deborah A Kuban; Patricia Dolan Mullen Journal: Narrat Inq Bioeth Date: 2016
Authors: Judith Lee Smith; Lori A Pollack; Juan L Rodriguez; Nikki A Hawkins; Tenbroeck Smith; Ruth Rechis; Andy Miller; Anne Willis; Helen Miller; Ingrid J Hall; Temeika L Fairley; Brenda Stone-Wiggins Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 4.442