N Ernstmann1, J Jaeger, C Kowalski, H Pfaff, L Weißbach. 1. Institut für Medizinsoziologie, Versorgungsforschung und Rehabilitationswissenschaft, Universität zu Köln (IMVR), Eupener Straße 129, 50933 Köln, Deutschland. nicole.ernstmann@uk-koeln.de
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Some data exist on information and decision-making preferences of elderly prostate cancer patients but little is known about whether communication needs are being met in urological practice. Therefore, it was the aim of this study to examine the information and shared decision-making experiences of prostate cancer patients over 75 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HAROW (hormonal therapy, active surveillance, radiation, operation and watchful waiting) study is a prospective, observational study designed to collect clinical data and patient reported outcome of different treatment options for patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer under real conditions. At 6-month intervals general clinical data, PROs (e.g. quality of life, quality of physician-patient interaction) and individual costs are documented. Data from 2,482 patients at 4 time points from T0 (initial diagnosis) to T3 (24 months follow-up) were analyzed. RESULTS: T-tests and χ(2)-tests revealed no significant differences in terms of shared decision-making and information to different treatment options between patients aged over 75 years old and the rest of the sample. Regarding information on self-help groups, rehabilitation options and a second medical opinion, there were significant differences between prostate cancer patient age groups: patients aged over 75 years old received less information on these aspects at all points in time. CONCLUSION: Patients at all ages feel activated by urologists and are informed about different treatment options. However, there is room for improvement in terms of informing especially elderly prostate cancer patients about rehabilitation, second medical opinions and self-help groups. Special information tools and decision aids for prostate cancer patients aged over 75 years old should be developed and implemented to meet the specific information needs.
INTRODUCTION: Some data exist on information and decision-making preferences of elderly prostate cancerpatients but little is known about whether communication needs are being met in urological practice. Therefore, it was the aim of this study to examine the information and shared decision-making experiences of prostate cancerpatients over 75 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The HAROW (hormonal therapy, active surveillance, radiation, operation and watchful waiting) study is a prospective, observational study designed to collect clinical data and patient reported outcome of different treatment options for patients newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer under real conditions. At 6-month intervals general clinical data, PROs (e.g. quality of life, quality of physician-patient interaction) and individual costs are documented. Data from 2,482 patients at 4 time points from T0 (initial diagnosis) to T3 (24 months follow-up) were analyzed. RESULTS: T-tests and χ(2)-tests revealed no significant differences in terms of shared decision-making and information to different treatment options between patients aged over 75 years old and the rest of the sample. Regarding information on self-help groups, rehabilitation options and a second medical opinion, there were significant differences between prostate cancerpatient age groups: patients aged over 75 years old received less information on these aspects at all points in time. CONCLUSION:Patients at all ages feel activated by urologists and are informed about different treatment options. However, there is room for improvement in terms of informing especially elderly prostate cancerpatients about rehabilitation, second medical opinions and self-help groups. Special information tools and decision aids for prostate cancerpatients aged over 75 years old should be developed and implemented to meet the specific information needs.
Authors: D Feldman-Stewart; M D Brundage; C Hayter; P Groome; J C Nickel; H Downes; W J Mackillop Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2000 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: L C Harlan; A Potosky; F D Gilliland; R Hoffman; P C Albertsen; A S Hamilton; J W Eley; J L Stanford; R A Stephenson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-12-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Clement K Gwede; Julio Pow-Sang; John Seigne; Randy Heysek; Mohamed Helal; Kristin Shade; Alan Cantor; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: D Feldman-Stewart; M D Brundage; C Hayter; P Groome; J C Nickel; H Downes; W J Mackillop Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Peep F M Stalmeier; Emile N J T van Lin; Eric C Schimmel; Henk Huizenga; Wim A J van Daal; Jan-Willem Leer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Emily C Serrell; Moritz Hansen; Greg Mills; Andrew Perry; Tracy Robbins; Melanie Feinberg; Scot C Remick; Lisa Beaule; Matt Hayn; Tom Kinkead; Paul K J Han; Jesse D Sammon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 4.226