Stacy Loeb1,2,3,4, Caitlin Curnyn2, Angela Fagerlin5,6, Ronald Scott Braithwaite2, Mark D Schwartz2,4, Herbert Lepor1,3, Herbert Ballentine Carter7, Erica Sedlander2. 1. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 6. Informatics, Decision Enhancement, and Surveillance (IDEAS) Center, Salt Lake City VA, UT, USA. 7. Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore and identify factors that influence physicians' decisions while monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify physicians treating prostate cancer from diverse clinical backgrounds and geographic areas across the USA. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews from July to December 2015, until thematic saturation was reached. The Applied Thematic Analysis framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded independently by two researchers. Matrix analysis and NVivo software were used for organization and further analysis. RESULTS: Eight key themes emerged to explain variation in AS monitoring: (i) physician comfort with AS; (ii) protocol selection; (iii) beliefs about the utility and quality of testing; (iv) years of experience and exposure to AS during training; (v) concerns about inflicting 'harm'; (vi) patient characteristics; (vii) patient preferences; and (viii) financial incentives. CONCLUSION: These qualitative data reveal which factors influence physicians who manage patients on AS. There is tension between providing standardized care while also considering individual patients' needs and health status. Additional education on AS is needed during urology training and continuing medical education. Future research is needed to empirically understand whether any specific protocol is superior to tailored, individualized care.
OBJECTIVE: To explore and identify factors that influence physicians' decisions while monitoring patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify physicians treating prostate cancer from diverse clinical backgrounds and geographic areas across the USA. We conducted 24 in-depth interviews from July to December 2015, until thematic saturation was reached. The Applied Thematic Analysis framework was used to guide data collection and analysis. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded independently by two researchers. Matrix analysis and NVivo software were used for organization and further analysis. RESULTS: Eight key themes emerged to explain variation in AS monitoring: (i) physician comfort with AS; (ii) protocol selection; (iii) beliefs about the utility and quality of testing; (iv) years of experience and exposure to AS during training; (v) concerns about inflicting 'harm'; (vi) patient characteristics; (vii) patient preferences; and (viii) financial incentives. CONCLUSION: These qualitative data reveal which factors influence physicians who manage patients on AS. There is tension between providing standardized care while also considering individual patients' needs and health status. Additional education on AS is needed during urology training and continuing medical education. Future research is needed to empirically understand whether any specific protocol is superior to tailored, individualized care.
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lawrence A Palinkas; Sarah M Horwitz; Carla A Green; Jennifer P Wisdom; Naihua Duan; Kimberly Hoagwood Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2015-09
Authors: Ola Bratt; Stefan Carlsson; Erik Holmberg; Lars Holmberg; Eva Johansson; Andreas Josefsson; Annika Nilsson; Maria Nyberg; David Robinsson; Jonas Sandberg; Dag Sandblom; Pär Stattin Journal: Scand J Urol Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 1.612
Authors: Mark V Mishra; Michele Bennett; Armon Vincent; Olivia T Lee; Costas D Lallas; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Adam P Dicker; Timothy N Showalter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Caitlin Curnyn; Angela Fagerlin; R Scott Braithwaite; Mark D Schwartz; Herbert Lepor; H Ballentine Carter; Shannon Ciprut; Erica Sedlander Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-09-01
Authors: Susan C Pitt; Nan Yang; Megan C Saucke; Nicholas Marka; Bret Hanlon; Kristin L Long; Alexandria D McDow; J P Brito; Benjamin R Roman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Claire Kim; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Gary Groot; Lucy Helyer; Pamela Meiers; May Lynn Quan; Robin Urquhart; Rebecca Warburton; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kittie Pang; Margaret Fitch; Veronique Ouellet; Simone Chevalier; Darrel E Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Alan So; Simon Sutcliffe; Simon Tanguay; Fred Saad; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 2.655