Literature DB >> 26237738

Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: Missed opportunities for shared decision making.

Marleen Kunneman1, Ellen G Engelhardt1, F L Laura Ten Hove1, Corrie A M Marijnen2, Johanneke E A Portielje3, Ellen M A Smets4, Hanneke J C J M Hanneke de Haes4, Anne M Stiggelbout1, Arwen H Pieterse1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The first step in shared decision making (SDM) is creating choice awareness. This is particularly relevant in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions, e.g. those addressing (neo-)adjuvant therapy. Awareness can be achieved by explicitly stating, as the 'reason for encounter', that a treatment decision needs to be made. It is unknown whether oncologists express such reason for encounter. This study aims to establish: 1) if 'making a treatment decision' is stated as a reason for the encounter and if not, what other reason for encounter is provided; and 2) whether mentioning that a treatment decision needs to be made is associated with enhanced patient involvement in decision making.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive first consultations with: 1) radiation oncologists and rectal cancer patients; or 2) medical oncologists and breast cancer patients, facing a preference-sensitive treatment decision, were audiotaped. The tapes were transcribed and coded using an instrument developed for the study. Oncologists' involvement of patients in decision making was coded using the OPTION-scale.
RESULTS: Oncologists (N = 33) gave a reason for encounter in 70/100 consultations, usually (N = 52/70, 74%) at the start of the consultation. The reason for encounter stated was 'making a treatment decision' in 3/100 consultations, and 'explaining treatment details' in 44/100 consultations. The option of foregoing adjuvant treatment was not explicitly presented in any consultation. Oncologist' involvement of patients in decision making was below baseline (Md OPTION-score = 10). Given the small number of consultations in which the need to make a treatment decision was stated, we could not investigate the impact thereof on patient involvement.
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that oncologists rarely express that a treatment decision needs to be made in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions. Therefore, patients might not realize that foregoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment is a viable choice. Oncologists miss a crucial opportunity to facilitate SDM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26237738     DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1068447

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Oncol        ISSN: 0284-186X            Impact factor:   4.089


  28 in total

1.  "I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology.

Authors:  Joschka Haltaufderheide; Sebastian Wäscher; Bernhard Bertlich; Jochen Vollmann; Anke Reinacher-Schick; Jan Schildmann
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2018-09-06

2.  Decision-making under clinical uncertainty: An in-depth examination of provider perspectives on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer.

Authors:  Rachel C Shelton; Laura E Brotzman; Danielle M Crookes; Patrick Robles; AIfred I Neugut
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-09-17

3.  Patient experience and quality of life during neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and study protocol.

Authors:  Jordan M Cloyd; Sarah Hyman; Tanya Huwig; Christina Monsour; Heena Santry; Celia Wills; Allan Tsung; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 4.  The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.

Authors:  Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Ian P Smith; Isabelle Scholl; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules.

Authors:  Naykky M Singh Ospina; Diliara Bagautdinova; Ian Hargraves; Diana Barb; Sreevidya Subbarayan; Ashok Srihari; Shu Wang; Spyridoula Maraka; Carma L Bylund; Debbie Treise; Victor Montori; Juan P Brito
Journal:  Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 3.478

6.  Characterizing the patient experience during neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Lena Stevens; Zachary J Brown; Ryan Zeh; Christina Monsour; Sharla Wells-Di Gregorio; Heena Santry; Aslam M Ejaz; Timothy Michael Pawlik; Jordan M Cloyd
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2022-06-15

7.  Eliciting the Patient's Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters.

Authors:  Naykky Singh Ospina; Kari A Phillips; Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Michael R Gionfriddo; Megan E Branda; Victor M Montori
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Effect of a multilevel implementation programme on shared decision-making in breast cancer care.

Authors:  H van Veenendaal; H Voogdt-Pruis; D T Ubbink; C G J M Hilders
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-03-05

9.  Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study.

Authors:  Åsa Kettis; Hanna Fagerlind; Jan-Erik Frödin; Bengt Glimelius; Lena Ring
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2021-07-14

10.  Shared decision making in cancer treatment: A Dutch national survey on patients' preferences and perceptions.

Authors:  Marieke M T Kuijpers; Haske van Veenendaal; Vivian Engelen; Ella Visserman; Eveline A Noteboom; Anne M Stiggelbout; Anne M May; Niek de Wit; Elsken van der Wall; Charles W Helsper
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 2.328

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.