Literature DB >> 28606972

Patient-Driven Second Opinions in Oncology: A Systematic Review.

Marij A Hillen1, Niki M Medendorp2, Joost G Daams3, Ellen M A Smets2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant databases were sought using the terms "cancer," "second opinion," and "self-initiated." Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers.
RESULTS: Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative (n = 4), mixed (n = 1), or quantitative (n = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%-88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients' primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%-51%. DISCUSSION: Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. The Oncologist 2017;22:1197-1211 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although cancer patients increasingly seek a second opinion, the benefits of this process remain unclear. Results of this systematic review suggest that the available studies on this topic are highly variable in both methodology and quality. Moreover, reported rates for a second opinion (1%-88%) as well as for disagreement between the first and second opinion (2%-51%) range widely. The primary motivations of patients are a need for certainty, lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Additional research should evaluate how unnecessary second opinions might be avoided. Practical suggestions are provided for oncologists to optimize second opinions. © AlphaMed Press 2017.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Physician‐patient relations; Quality of care; Referral and consultation; Review; Second opinion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28606972      PMCID: PMC5634767          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  46 in total

1.  A questionnaire on requests for disclosure of diagnosis, self-choice of treatment, and second opinion of patients with oral cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Masahiro Umeda; Hideki Komatsubara; Tsutomu Minamikawa; Shungo Furudoi; Yasuyuki Shibuya; Satoshi Yokoo; Takahide Komori
Journal:  J Palliat Care       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.250

2.  Second opinions for patients with cancer.

Authors:  K Sikora
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-11-04

3.  What is the value of patient-sought second opinions?

Authors:  M Mustafa; M Bijl; R Gans
Journal:  Eur J Intern Med       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.487

4.  Results of the Lynn Sage Second-Opinion Program for local therapy in patients with breast carcinoma. Changes in management and determinants of where care is delivered.

Authors:  Jennifer Clauson; Y C Hsieh; Simbi Acharya; Alfred W Rademaker; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  An exploration of the dynamics and influences upon second medical opinion consultations in cancer care.

Authors:  Jennifer Philip; Michelle Gold; Max Schwarz; Paul Komesaroff
Journal:  Asia Pac J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 2.601

6.  Cancer prevalence and survivorship issues: analyses of the 1992 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  M Hewitt; N Breen; S Devesa
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  The behaviors of seeking a second opinion from other health-care professionals and the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine in gynecologic cancer patients.

Authors:  K F Tam; D K L Cheng; T Y Ng; H Y S Ngan
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2005-07-20       Impact factor: 3.603

8.  Why do patients seek a second opinion or alternative medicine?

Authors:  L R Sutherland; M J Verhoef
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.062

9.  Patients' reactions and physician-patient communication in a mandatory surgical second-opinion program.

Authors:  S N Rosenberg; S A Gorman; S Snitzer; E V Herbst; D Lynne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  The determinants and consequences of information seeking among cancer patients.

Authors:  Ronald Czaja; Clara Manfredi; Jammie Price
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec
View more
  22 in total

1.  Assessment of Challenges Encountered by Dutch Oncologists When Patients Ask for Second Opinions.

Authors:  Marij A Hillen; F J Sherida H Woei-A-Jin; Ellen M A Smets; Pomme E A van Maarschalkerweerd; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Dirkje W Sommeijer
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  Physicians' Perspectives on the Implementation of the Second Opinion Directive in Germany-An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.

Authors:  Susann May; Dunja Bruch; Felix Muehlensiepen; Yuriy Ignatyev; Edmund Neugebauer; Cecile Ronckers; Sebastian von Peter
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  Time to Surgery and the Impact of Delay in the Non-Neoadjuvant Setting on Triple-Negative Breast Cancers and Other Phenotypes.

Authors:  Alina M Mateo; Anna M Mazor; Elias Obeid; John M Daly; Elin R Sigurdson; Elizabeth A Handorf; Lyudmila DeMora; Allison A Aggon; Richard J Bleicher
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Nutrition and the developing brain: the road to optimizing early neurodevelopment: a systematic review.

Authors:  Katherine M Ottolini; Nickie Andescavage; Susan Keller; Catherine Limperopoulos
Journal:  Pediatr Res       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 3.756

5.  Obtaining a second opinion is a neglected source of health care inequalities.

Authors:  Jochanan Benbassat
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2019-01-16

6.  Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  E Heeg; Y A Civil; M A Hillen; C H Smorenburg; L A E Woerdeman; E J Groen; H A O Winter-Warnars; M T F D Vrancken Peeters
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Communication about Prognosis during Patient-Initiated Second Opinion Consultations in Advanced Cancer Care: An Observational Qualitative Analysis.

Authors:  N C A van der Velden; M B A van der Kleij; V Lehmann; E M A Smets; J M L Stouthard; I Henselmans; M A Hillen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Analysis of Oncological Second Opinions in a Certified University Breast and Gynecological Cancer Center Regarding Consensus between the First and Second Opinion and Conformity with the Guidelines.

Authors:  Michael P Lux; Sonja Wasner; Julia Meyer; Lothar Häberle; Carolin C Hack; Sebastian Jud; Alexander Hein; Marius Wunderle; Julius Emons; Paul Gass; Peter A Fasching; Sainab Egloffstein; Jessica Krebs; Yesim Erim; Matthias W Beckmann; Christian R Loehberg
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 2.268

9.  Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.

Authors:  L F van de Water; J J van Kleef; W P M Dijksterhuis; I Henselmans; H G van den Boorn; N M Vaarzon Morel; K F Schut; J G Daams; E M A Smets; H W M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Second opinions in medical oncology.

Authors:  Ian Olver; Mariko Carey; Jamie Bryant; Allison Boyes; Tiffany Evans; Rob Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  BMC Palliat Care       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 3.234

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.