Sheila N Garland1, Whitney Eriksen2, Sarah Song2, Joshua Dearing3, Frances K Barg2, Philip Gehrman4, Jun J Mao5. 1. Departments of Psychology and Oncology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada. sheila.garland@mun.ca. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. The Bendheim Center for Integrative Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient preference is an essential component of patient-centered supportive cancer care; however, little is known about the factors that shape preference for treatment. This study sought to understand what factors may contribute to patient preference for two non-pharmacological interventions, acupuncture or cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). METHODS: We conducted individual, open-ended, semi-structured interviews among cancer survivors who had completed active treatment and met the diagnostic criteria for insomnia disorder. Two forms of codes were used for analysis: a priori set of codes derived from the key ideas and a set of codes that emerged from the data. RESULTS: Among 53 participants, the median age was 60.7 (range 27-83), 30 participants (56.6%) were female, and 18 (34%) were non-white. We identified three themes that contributed to an individual's treatment preference: perception of the treatment's evidence base, experience with the treatment, and consideration of personal factors. Participants gave preference to the treatment perceived as having stronger evidence. Participants also reflected on positive or negative experiences with both of the interventions, counting their own experiences, as well as those of trusted sources. Lastly, participants considered their own unique circumstances and factors such as the amount of work involved, fit with personality, or fit with their "type" of insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the evidence base, past experience, and personal factors shaped patient preference regardless of whether they accurately represent the evidence. Acknowledging these salient factors may help inform patient-centered decision-making and care.
PURPOSE:Patient preference is an essential component of patient-centered supportive cancer care; however, little is known about the factors that shape preference for treatment. This study sought to understand what factors may contribute to patient preference for two non-pharmacological interventions, acupuncture or cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). METHODS: We conducted individual, open-ended, semi-structured interviews among cancer survivors who had completed active treatment and met the diagnostic criteria for insomnia disorder. Two forms of codes were used for analysis: a priori set of codes derived from the key ideas and a set of codes that emerged from the data. RESULTS: Among 53 participants, the median age was 60.7 (range 27-83), 30 participants (56.6%) were female, and 18 (34%) were non-white. We identified three themes that contributed to an individual's treatment preference: perception of the treatment's evidence base, experience with the treatment, and consideration of personal factors. Participants gave preference to the treatment perceived as having stronger evidence. Participants also reflected on positive or negative experiences with both of the interventions, counting their own experiences, as well as those of trusted sources. Lastly, participants considered their own unique circumstances and factors such as the amount of work involved, fit with personality, or fit with their "type" of insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the evidence base, past experience, and personal factors shaped patient preference regardless of whether they accurately represent the evidence. Acknowledging these salient factors may help inform patient-centered decision-making and care.
Authors: Joseph D Shirk; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sylvia Lambrechts; Ely Dahan; Robert Kaplan; Christopher Saigal Journal: Patient Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Carrie D Llewellyn; Debbie J Horney; Mark McGurk; John Weinman; Jim Herold; Keith Altman; Helen E Smith Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Ellyn E Matthews; J Todd Arnedt; Michaela S McCarthy; Leisha J Cuddihy; Mark S Aloia Journal: Sleep Med Rev Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 11.609
Authors: Sarah L Shingler; Bryan M Bennett; Joyce A Cramer; Adrian Towse; Christopher Twelves; Andrew J Lloyd Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Weidong Lu; Elizabeth Dean-Clower; Anne Doherty-Gilman; David S Rosenthal Journal: Hematol Oncol Clin North Am Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.722
Authors: Sally A D Romero; Eileen Jiang; Jason Bussell; Whitney Eriksen; Katherine N Duhamel; Frances K Barg; Jun J Mao Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2020-06
Authors: Sheila N Garland; Sharon X Xie; Kate DuHamel; Ting Bao; Qing Li; Frances K Barg; Sarah Song; Philip Kantoff; Philip Gehrman; Jun J Mao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Whitney T Eriksen; Lydia Singerman; Sally A D Romero; Jason Bussell; Frances K Barg; Jun J Mao Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2018 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Ellen Krueger; Ekin Secinti; Catherine E Mosher; Patrick V Stutz; Andrea A Cohee; Shelley A Johns Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2021 Nov-Dec 01 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Sheila N Garland; Kelly Trevino; Kevin T Liou; Philip Gehrman; Eugenie Spiguel; Jodi MacLeod; Desirée A H Walker; Betsy Glosik; Christina Seluzicki; Frances K Barg; Jun J Mao Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Xian-Liang Liu; Hui Lin Cheng; Simon Moss; Carol Chunfeng Wang; Catherine Turner; Jing-Yu Tan Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 2.629