Nicole M Cranley1, Barbara Curbow2, Thomas J George3, Juliette Christie2. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 324 Rosenau Hall, 134 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. ncranley@email.unc.edu. 2. Department of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 3. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In recent years, a greater emphasis has been placed on shared decision-making (SDM) techniques between providers and patients with the goal of helping patients make informed decisions about their care and subsequently to improve patient health outcomes. Previous research has shown variability in treatment decision-making among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), and there is little comprehensive information available to help explain this variability. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the current state of the literature on factors that are influential in treatment decision-making among patients with CRC. METHOD: A priori search terms using Boolean connectors were used to examine PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study included patients with CRC and examination of influences on CRC treatment decision-making. All relevant data were extracted including, author, title and year, study methodology, and study results. RESULTS: Findings (n = 13) yielded influences in four areas: informational, patient treatment goals, patient role preferences, and relationship with provider. Quality of life and trust in physician were rated a high priority among patients when making decisions between different therapeutic options. Several studies found that patients wanted to be informed and involved but did not necessarily want to make autonomous treatment choices, with many preferring a more passive role. CONCLUSIONS: Providers who initiate a dialog to better understand their patients' treatment goals can establish rapport, increase patient understanding of treatment options, and help patients assume their desired role in their decision-making. Overall, there were a small number of studies that met all inclusion criteria with most used a cross-sectional design.
PURPOSE: In recent years, a greater emphasis has been placed on shared decision-making (SDM) techniques between providers and patients with the goal of helping patients make informed decisions about their care and subsequently to improve patient health outcomes. Previous research has shown variability in treatment decision-making among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), and there is little comprehensive information available to help explain this variability. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the current state of the literature on factors that are influential in treatment decision-making among patients with CRC. METHOD: A priori search terms using Boolean connectors were used to examine PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study included patients with CRC and examination of influences on CRC treatment decision-making. All relevant data were extracted including, author, title and year, study methodology, and study results. RESULTS: Findings (n = 13) yielded influences in four areas: informational, patient treatment goals, patient role preferences, and relationship with provider. Quality of life and trust in physician were rated a high priority among patients when making decisions between different therapeutic options. Several studies found that patients wanted to be informed and involved but did not necessarily want to make autonomous treatment choices, with many preferring a more passive role. CONCLUSIONS: Providers who initiate a dialog to better understand their patients' treatment goals can establish rapport, increase patient understanding of treatment options, and help patients assume their desired role in their decision-making. Overall, there were a small number of studies that met all inclusion criteria with most used a cross-sectional design.
Authors: Ryaz Chagpar; Yan Xing; Yi-Ju Chiang; Barry W Feig; George J Chang; Y Nancy You; Janice N Cormier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alex Z Fu; Kristi D Graves; Roxanne E Jensen; John L Marshall; Margaret Formoso; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Xianglin L Du; Shenying Fang; Sally W Vernon; Hashem El-Serag; Y Tina Shih; Jessica Davila; Monica L Rasmus Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: H S Snijders; M Kunneman; B A Bonsing; A C de Vries; R A E M Tollenaar; A H Pieterse; A M Stiggelbout Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Kinta Beaver; David Jones; Shabbir Susnerwala; Olive Craven; Mary Tomlinson; Gary Witham; Karen A Luker Journal: Health Expect Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Alexandra Koreli; George Briassoulis; Michail Sideris; Anastas Philalithis; Savvas Papagrigoriadis Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Bethany A Rhoten; Jessie I Sellers; Breanna Baraff; Kelly H Holler; Sheila H Ridner Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 3.603