Literature DB >> 29501555

Shared Decision Making in Prostate Cancer Care-Encouraging Every Patient to be Actively Involved in Decision Making or Ensuring the Patient Preferred Level of Involvement?

Marie-Anne van Stam1, Arwen H Pieterse2, Henk G van der Poel3, J L H Ruud Bosch4, Corinne Tillier3, Simon Horenblas5, Neil K Aaronson6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to 1) describe preferred and experienced roles in treatment decision making among patients with localized prostate cancer, 2) identify how often the roles experienced by patients matched their preferred roles and 3) determine whether active involvement in decision making regardless of role preferences or concordance between preferred and experienced roles would be the strongest predictor of more favorable patient reported outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study we obtained serial questionnaire data from 454 patients with newly diagnosed, localized prostate cancer (cT1-cT2, or Gleason 7 or less and prostate specific antigen 20 ng/ml or less). Questionnaires were completed prior to treatment and at the 3, 6 and 12-month posttreatment followups. Clinical data were obtained from the patient medical records. Active involvement and role concordance were operationalized using the CPS (Control Preferences Scale). ANOVA and effect sizes (small and medium Cohen d = 0.2 and 0.5, respectively) were used to compare patient knowledge of prostate cancer, decision conflict, decision regret and overall health related quality of life.
RESULTS: Of the patients 393 (87%) reported having been actively involved in treatment decision making. However, 78 patients (17%) indicated having had less or more involvement than preferred. Active involvement was significantly associated with more prostate cancer knowledge (d = 0.30), less decision conflict (d = 0.52) and less decision regret (d = 0.34). Role concordance was also but less strongly associated with less decision conflict (d = 0.41).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support a policy of encouraging all patients with localized prostate cancer regardless of their stated role preferences to be actively involved in the treatment decision.
Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision making; patient participation; patient reported outcome measures; prostatic neoplasms; quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29501555     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.3091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  9 in total

1.  How are patient-related characteristics associated with shared decision-making about treatment? A scoping review of quantitative studies.

Authors:  Sascha M Keij; Joyce E de Boer; Anne M Stiggelbout; Wändi Bruine de Bruin; Ellen Peters; Saïda Moaddine; Marleen Kunneman; Arwen H Pieterse
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Treatment decision-making in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a patient's perspective.

Authors:  Julia Spierings; Femke C C van Rhijn-Brouwer; Carolijn J M de Bresser; Petra T M Mosterman; Arwen H Pieterse; Madelon C Vonk; Alexandre E Voskuyl; Jeska K de Vries-Bouwstra; Marijke C Kars; Jacob M van Laar
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 7.580

3.  Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Huiwen Luo; Guohua Liu; Jing Lu; Di Xue
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 2.796

4.  Shared decision making, physicians' explanations, and treatment satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Nakayama; Wakako Osaka; Nobuaki Matsubara; Tsutomu Takeuchi; Mayumi Toyoda; Noriyuki Ohtake; Hiroji Uemura
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 2.796

5.  The 17-gene Genomic Prostate Score assay as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Brian T Helfand; Michael Paterakos; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Pooja Talaty; John Abran; John Bennett; David W Hall; Amy Lehman; Tamer Aboushwareb
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Decision Regret and Quality of Life after Focal Therapy with Vascular-Targeted Photodynamic Therapy (TOOKAD®) for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Luka Flegar; Martin Baunacke; Bjoern Thorben Buerk; Rick Proschmann; Aristeidis Zacharis; Stefan Propping; Johannes Huber; Christian Thomas; Angelika Borkowetz
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 1.934

Review 7.  Contemporary outcomes following robotic prostatectomy for locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer.

Authors:  Barrett Z McCormick; Lisly Chery; Brian F Chapin
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

8.  The Treatment Decision-making Preferences of Patients with Prostate Cancer Should Be Recorded in Research and Clinical Routine: a Pooled Analysis of Four Survey Studies with 7169 Patients.

Authors:  Andreas Ihrig; I Maatouk; H C Friederich; M Baunacke; C Groeben; R Koch; C Thomas; J Huber
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 1.771

Review 9.  Empowering patients in decision-making in radiation oncology - can we do better?

Authors:  Michelle Leech; Matthew S Katz; Joanna Kazmierska; Julie McCrossin; Sandra Turner
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 6.603

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.