Aaron L Leppin1,2, Katherine M Humeniuk3, Cara Fernandez1, Victor M Montori1, Kathleen Yost2, Ashok Kumbamu3, Gail Geller4,5, Jon C Tilburt2,3,6. 1. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Biomedical Ethics Program, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter. METHODS: We surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners). RESULTS: Patients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter. METHODS: We surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners). RESULTS:Patients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance. CONCLUSIONS:Patients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Isabelle Scholl; Marije Koelewijn-van Loon; Karen Sepucha; Glyn Elwyn; France Légaré; Martin Härter; Jörg Dirmaier Journal: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes Date: 2011-05-04
Authors: Sandra R Wilson; Peg Strub; A Sonia Buist; Sarah B Knowles; Philip W Lavori; Jodi Lapidus; William M Vollmer Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Garrett T Wasp; Kristin E Knutzen; Genevra F Murray; Olivia C Brody-Bizar; Matthew A Liu; Kathryn I Pollak; James A Tulsky; Yael Schenker; Amber E Barnato Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-12-02
Authors: Aaron L Leppin; Marleen Kunneman; Julie Hathaway; Cara Fernandez; Victor M Montori; Jon C Tilburt Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Michael R Gionfriddo; Megan E Branda; Cara Fernandez; Aaron Leppin; Kathleen J Yost; Brittany Kimball; Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Laura Larrea; Katherine E Nowakowski; Victor M Montori; Jon Tilburt Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 2.655