PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of using a decision aid with an interactive decision-making process in patients with solid tumors and their caregivers during cancer-related treatment. RESEARCH APPROACH: A phenomenologic approach was used to analyze qualitative data, with a focus on the meaning of participants' lived experiences. Interviews were conducted by telephone or in person. SETTING: Outpatient clinics at two regional cancer centers. PARTICIPANTS: 160 total individuals; 80 patients with newly diagnosed breast (n = 22), advanced-stage prostate (n = 19), or advanced-stage lung (n = 39) cancer, and their caregivers (n = 80). METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Twenty-seven of the 80 pairs engaged in audio recorded interviews that were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. Continuous text immersion revealed themes. Validity of qualitative analysis was achieved by member checking. FINDINGS: Significant findings included three themes: (a) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers understand treatment decisions better, (b) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers to be more involved in treatment decisions, and (c) frequent contact with the study nurse was valuable. CONCLUSIONS: Decision making was more complex than participants expected. The decision aid helped patients and caregivers make satisfying treatment decisions and become integral in a shared treatment decision-making process. INTERPRETATION: Decision aids can help patients and their caregivers make difficult treatment decisions affecting quantity and quality of life during cancer treatment. The findings provide valuable information for healthcare providers helping patients and their caregivers make treatment decisions through a shared, informed, decision-making process. KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION: Decision aids can be helpful with treatment choices. Caregivers' understanding about treatment is just as important in the decision-making process as the patients' understanding. Incorporating decision aids that are delivered by healthcare providers or trained personnel has the potential to improve patients' decision satisfaction.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of using a decision aid with an interactive decision-making process in patients with solid tumors and their caregivers during cancer-related treatment. RESEARCH APPROACH: A phenomenologic approach was used to analyze qualitative data, with a focus on the meaning of participants' lived experiences. Interviews were conducted by telephone or in person. SETTING:Outpatient clinics at two regional cancer centers. PARTICIPANTS: 160 total individuals; 80 patients with newly diagnosed breast (n = 22), advanced-stage prostate (n = 19), or advanced-stage lung (n = 39) cancer, and their caregivers (n = 80). METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Twenty-seven of the 80 pairs engaged in audio recorded interviews that were conducted using a semistructured interview guide. Continuous text immersion revealed themes. Validity of qualitative analysis was achieved by member checking. FINDINGS: Significant findings included three themes: (a) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers understand treatment decisions better, (b) the decision aid helped patients and caregivers to be more involved in treatment decisions, and (c) frequent contact with the study nurse was valuable. CONCLUSIONS: Decision making was more complex than participants expected. The decision aid helped patients and caregivers make satisfying treatment decisions and become integral in a shared treatment decision-making process. INTERPRETATION: Decision aids can help patients and their caregivers make difficult treatment decisions affecting quantity and quality of life during cancer treatment. The findings provide valuable information for healthcare providers helping patients and their caregivers make treatment decisions through a shared, informed, decision-making process. KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION: Decision aids can be helpful with treatment choices. Caregivers' understanding about treatment is just as important in the decision-making process as the patients' understanding. Incorporating decision aids that are delivered by healthcare providers or trained personnel has the potential to improve patients' decision satisfaction.
Authors: Lawrence T Dauer; Raymond H Thornton; Jennifer L Hay; Rochelle Balter; Matthew J Williamson; Jean St Germain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Valerie Fiset; Annette M. O'Connor; William Evans; Ian Graham; Catherine Degrasse; Jo Logan Journal: Health Expect Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Mary Ann O'Brien; Timothy J Whelan; Miguel Villasis-Keever; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Robin Roberts; Susan Schiff; Wenjie Cai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Celette Sugg Skinner; Joellen M Schildkraut; Donald Berry; Brian Calingaert; P Kelly Marcom; Jeremy Sugarman; Eric P Winer; J Dirk Iglehart; P Andrew Futreal; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Genet Test Date: 2002
Authors: Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla; Randy A Jones; Christopher Y Thomas; David R Brenin; Geoffrey R Weiss; Anneke T Schroen; Gina R Petroni Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lourdes R Carhuapoma; Winter M Thayer; Catherine E Elmore; Jane Gildersleeve; Tanmay Singh; Farah Shaukat; Melissa K Uveges; Tamryn Gray; Crystal Chu; Daniel Song; Patricia J Hollen; Jennifer Wenzel; Randy A Jones Journal: Trials Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla; Ryan D Gentzler; Richard D Hall; Bethany Coyne; Haiying Cheng; Balazs Halmos; Jane Gildersleeve; Claudia Calderon; Ivora Hinton; Geoffrey Weiss; Jeffrey Crawford; Jane Cerise; Martin Lesser Journal: Oncologist Date: 2020-11-10
Authors: Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Sue V Petzel; Julie Cragg; Molly McClellan; Daniel Chan; Elizabeth Dickson; Julie A Jacko; François Sainfort; Melissa A Geller Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 5.482