Literature DB >> 2379006

Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public.

M L Slevin1, L Stubbs, H J Plant, P Wilson, W M Gregory, P J Armes, S M Downer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare responses of patients with cancer with those of a matched control group, cancer specialists, general practitioners, and cancer nurses in assessing personal cost-benefit of chemotherapy.
DESIGN: Prospective study of consecutively recruited patients with cancer and other groups by questionnaire; half of the patients received the questionnaire again three months after starting treatment.
SETTING: A medical oncology ward of a London teaching hospital.
SUBJECTS: 106 Patients with newly diagnosed solid tumours referred to the unit for consideration of treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy, 100 of whom were able to complete the questionnaire. 100 Matched controls, 315 cancer doctors (238 radiotherapists and 77 medical oncologists), 1500 randomly chosen general practitioners, and 1000 randomly chosen cancer nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage chance of cure, prolonging life, or palliation of symptoms required to make treatment worth while with two hypothetical chemotherapy treatments, with severe and mild side effects respectively.
RESULTS: Respondents to the questionnaire comprised 100 patients, 100 controls, 60 (78%) medical oncologists, 88 (37%) radiotherapists, 790 (53%) general practitioners, and 303 (30%) cancer nurses. Most patients were willing to accept intensive chemotherapy for a very small chance of benefit. The median benefit required to make the hypothetical intensive treatments worth while for patients compared with controls were: for chance of a cure (range 1 to 100%) 1% v 50%, for prolonging life (range three months to five years) 12 months v 24-60 months, and for relief of symptoms (range 1 to 100%) 10% v 75% respectively. There were no significant differences in the responses of the 50 patients completing the questionnaire on a second occasion. Doctors and nurses were less likely to accept radical treatment for minimal benefit compared with the patients (median scores 10-50%, 12-24 months, and 50-75%, for chance of cure, prolonging life, and relief of symptoms respectively). Significantly more patients than controls accepted treatments giving the minimal benefit for each category (cure 53.1 v 19.0%, 67.0 v 35.0%; prolonging life 42.1 v 10.0%, 53.0 v 25.0%; relief of symptoms 42.6 v 10.0%, 58.7 v 19.0% for intensive and mild treatments respectively, p less than 0.001) as was the case for comparison of patients with other groups.
CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer are much more likely to opt for radical treatment with minimal chance of benefit than people who do not have cancer, including medical and nursing professionals. This could be taken into account when discussing treatment options with patients and their relatives.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2379006      PMCID: PMC1663147          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  7 in total

1.  Talking about cancer: how much is too much?

Authors:  M L Slevin
Journal:  Br J Hosp Med       Date:  1987-07

2.  Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer.

Authors:  B J McNeil; R Weichselbaum; S G Pauker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1981-10-22       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Disclosure of information to patients in medical care.

Authors:  R R Faden; C Becker; C Lewis; J Freeman; A I Faden
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1981-07       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Information and participation preferences among cancer patients.

Authors:  B R Cassileth; R V Zupkis; K Sutton-Smith; V March
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1980-06       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Preferences for treatment control among adults with cancer.

Authors:  L F Degner; C A Russell
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 2.228

6.  Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer.

Authors:  B J McNeil; R Weichselbaum; S G Pauker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-12-21       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Who should measure quality of life, the doctor or the patient?

Authors:  M L Slevin; H Plant; D Lynch; J Drinkwater; W M Gregory
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 7.640

  7 in total
  149 in total

1.  Chemotherapy for advanced color. Please aim for accuracy rather than hard hitting headlines.

Authors:  M M Kirollos
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-27

2.  Emotional dimensions of chronic disease.

Authors:  J Turner; B Kelly
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-02

3.  Personal values and cancer treatment refusal.

Authors:  M Huijer; E van Leeuwen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 4.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

5.  Prospective study of health status preferences and changes in preferences over time in older adults.

Authors:  Terri R Fried; Amy L Byers; William T Gallo; Peter H Van Ness; Virginia R Towle; John R O'Leary; Joel A Dubin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-04-24

Review 6.  The lung cancer paradox: time for action.

Authors:  R C Rintoul; T Sethi
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 9.139

7.  Planning for a good death: responding to unexpected events.

Authors:  Y Saunders; J R Ross; J Riley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-07-26

8.  Quality of life: philosophical question or clinical reality?

Authors:  M L Slevin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-08-22

9.  Use of chemotherapy at the end of life in a Portuguese oncology center.

Authors:  José Ferraz Gonçalves; Carmen Goyanes
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  Patients' expectations about effects of chemotherapy for advanced cancer.

Authors:  Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.