Literature DB >> 27346824

Is "Active Surveillance" an Acceptable Alternative?: A Qualitative Study of Couples' Decision Making about Early-Stage, Localized Prostate Cancer.

Yen-Chi L Le, Stephanie L McFall, Theresa L Byrd, Robert J Volk, Scott B Cantor, Deborah A Kuban, Patricia Dolan Mullen.   

Abstract

The objective of our study was to describe decision making by men and their partners regarding active surveillance (AS) or treatment for early-stage, localized prostate cancer. Fifteen couples were recruited from a cancer center multispecialty clinic, which gave full information about all options, including AS. Data were collected via individual, semi-structured telephone interviews. Most patients were white, non-Hispanic, had private insurance, had completed at least some college, and were aged 49-72 years. Ten chose AS. All partners were female, and couples reported strong marital satisfaction and cohesion. All couples described similar sequences of a highly emotional initial reaction and desire to be rid of the cancer, information seeking, and decision making. The choice of AS was built on a nuanced evaluation of the man's condition in which the couple differentiated prostate cancer from other cancers and early stage from later stages, wanted to avoid/delay side effects, and trusted the AS protocol to identify negative changes in time for successful treatment. Treated couples continued to want immediate treatment to remove the cancer. We concluded that having a partner's support for AS may help a man feel more comfortable with choosing and adhering to AS. Using decision aids that address both a man's and his partner's concerns regarding AS may increase its acceptability. Our research shows that some patients want to and do involve their partners in the decision-making process. Ethical issues are related to the tension between desire for partner involvement and the importance of the patient as autonomous decision-maker. The extended period of decision making, particularly for AS, is also an ethical issue that requires additional support for patients and couples in the making of fully informed choices that includes AS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27346824      PMCID: PMC5176358          DOI: 10.1353/nib.2016.0006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Narrat Inq Bioeth        ISSN: 2157-1740


  22 in total

1.  Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis.

Authors:  Zvi Eisikovits; Chaya Koren
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2010-07-27

2.  Multiple physician recommendations for prostate cancer treatment: a Pandora's box for patients?

Authors:  Willie Underwood; Heather Orom; Michael Poch; Brady T West; Paula M Lantz; Sam S Chang; Jay H Fowke
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.344

3.  Married couples' perspectives on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment decision-making.

Authors:  U Boehmer; J A Clark
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.894

4.  Factors that influence patient enrollment in active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Gorin; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-01-07       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Provider and partner interactions in the treatment decision-making process for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Steven B Zeliadt; David F Penson; Carol M Moinpour; David K Blough; Catherine R Fedorenko; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Ian M Thompson; Thomas E Keane; Scott D Ramsey
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  A longitudinal study of changes in provider-patient interaction in treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nicole Ernstmann; Oliver Ommen; Christoph Kowalski; Melanie Neumann; Adriaan Visser; Holger Pfaff; Lothar Weissbach
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Factors influencing men undertaking active surveillance for the management of low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  B Joyce Davison; John L Oliffe; Tom Pickles; Lawrence Mroz
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment.

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Scott B Cantor; Alvah R Cass; Stephen J Spann; Susan C Weller; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  'They're doing surgery on two people': a meta-ethnography of the influences on couples' treatment decision making for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kate Schumm; Zoe Skea; Lorna McKee; James N'Dow
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 3.377

View more
  5 in total

1.  Factors Influencing Men's Choice of and Adherence to Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: A Mixed-method Systematic Review.

Authors:  Netty Kinsella; Pär Stattin; Declan Cahill; Christian Brown; Anna Bill-Axelson; Ola Bratt; Sigrid Carlsson; Mieke Van Hemelrijck
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 2.  Supportive care needs of men with prostate cancer: A systematic review update.

Authors:  Jai Prashar; Patricia Schartau; Elizabeth Murray
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 2.328

3.  Exercise training as a novel primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a multi-site randomised controlled phase II study.

Authors:  L Bourke; R Stevenson; R Turner; R Hooper; P Sasieni; R Greasley; D Morrissey; M Loosemore; A Fisher; H Payne; S J C Taylor; D J Rosario
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  African American Women's Involvement in Promoting Informed Decision-Making for Prostate Cancer Screening Among Their Partners/Spouses.

Authors:  Jennifer D Allen; Ifedayo C Akinyemi; Amanda Reich; Sasha Fleary; Shalini Tendulkar; Nadeerah Lamour
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2018-01-04

5.  Associations of multimorbidity and patient-reported experiences of care with conservative management among elderly patients with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ryan M Fiano; Gregory S Merrick; Kim E Innes; Malcolm D Mattes; Traci J LeMasters; Chan Shen; Usha Sambamoorthi
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 4.452

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.