BACKGROUND: In shared decision making (SDM), the patient and the physician reach decisions in partnership. We conducted a trial of SDM training for physicians who treat patients with cancer. METHODS:Physicians who treat patients with cancer were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized trial and carry out SDM together with breastor colon cancer patients who faced decisions about their treatment. Decision-related physician-patient conversations were recorded. The patients filled out questionnaires immediately after the consultations (T1) and three months later (T2). The primary endpoints were the patients' confidence in and satisfaction with the decisions taken. The secondary endpoints were the process of decision making, anxiety, depression, quality of life, and externally assessed physician competence in SDM. The physicians in the intervention group underwent 12 hours of training in SDM, including the use of decision aids. RESULTS: Of the 900 physicians invited to participated in the trial, 105 answered the invitation. 86 were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the controlgroup (44 and 42 physicians, respectively); 33 of the 86 physicians recruited at least one patient for the trial. A total of 160 patients participated in the trial, of whom 55 were treated by physicians in the intervention group. There were no intergroup differences in the primary endpoints. Trained physicians were more competent in SDM (Cohen's d = 0.56; p<0.05). Patients treated by trained physicians had lower anxiety and depression scores immediately after the consultation (d = -0.12 and -0.14, respectively; p<0.10), and markedly lower anxiety and depression scores three months later (d = -0.94 and -0.67, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: When physicians treating cancer patients improve their competence in SDM by appropriate training, their patients may suffer less anxiety and depression. These effects merit further study.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In shared decision making (SDM), the patient and the physician reach decisions in partnership. We conducted a trial of SDM training for physicians who treat patients with cancer. METHODS: Physicians who treat patients with cancer were invited to participate in a cluster-randomized trial and carry out SDM together with breast or colon cancerpatients who faced decisions about their treatment. Decision-related physician-patient conversations were recorded. The patients filled out questionnaires immediately after the consultations (T1) and three months later (T2). The primary endpoints were the patients' confidence in and satisfaction with the decisions taken. The secondary endpoints were the process of decision making, anxiety, depression, quality of life, and externally assessed physician competence in SDM. The physicians in the intervention group underwent 12 hours of training in SDM, including the use of decision aids. RESULTS: Of the 900 physicians invited to participated in the trial, 105 answered the invitation. 86 were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (44 and 42 physicians, respectively); 33 of the 86 physicians recruited at least one patient for the trial. A total of 160 patients participated in the trial, of whom 55 were treated by physicians in the intervention group. There were no intergroup differences in the primary endpoints. Trained physicians were more competent in SDM (Cohen's d = 0.56; p<0.05). Patients treated by trained physicians had lower anxiety and depression scores immediately after the consultation (d = -0.12 and -0.14, respectively; p<0.10), and markedly lower anxiety and depression scores three months later (d = -0.94 and -0.67, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: When physicians treating cancerpatients improve their competence in SDM by appropriate training, their patients may suffer less anxiety and depression. These effects merit further study.
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Timothy Whelan; Mark Levine; Andrew Willan; Amiram Gafni; Ken Sanders; Doug Mirsky; Shelley Chambers; Mary Ann O'Brien; Susan Reid; Sacha Dubois Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-07-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas E Elliott; Stephen E Asche; Patrick J O'Connor; Steven P Dehmer; Heidi L Ekstrom; Anjali R Truitt; Ella A Chrenka; Melissa L Harry; Daniel M Saman; Clayton I Allen; Joseph A Bianco; Laura A Freitag; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Lindsay A Renfro; Nan Zhang; Margarita Lopatin; Calvin Chao; Steven R Alberts Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Klaus J Neis; Wolfgang Zubke; Mathias Fehr; Thomas Römer; Karl Tamussino; Monika Nothacker Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: France Légaré; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-19
Authors: Anja Lindig; Pola Hahlweg; Eva Christalle; Anik Giguere; Martin Härter; Olaf von dem Knesebeck; Isabelle Scholl Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 2.655