Cindy B Matsen1, Sarah Lyons2, Melody S Goodman3, Barbara B Biesecker4, Kimberly A Kaphingst5. 1. Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. Electronic address: cindy.matsen@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY, 10003, USA. 4. Research Triangle Institute, International, Washington DC, 20005, USA. 5. Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA; Department of Communcation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand decision role preferences in women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age for return of results of genome sequencing in research and clinical settings. METHODS: Participants were surveyed about communication and decision-making preferences related to genome sequencing results and factors that may affect these preferences. The primary outcome was decision role preference (Control Preference Scale) for selecting what results to receive within medical care or within a research study. RESULTS: For results returned as part of medical care, most patients preferred a collaborative (N = 481, 45%) or active (N = 488, 45%) role with only 107 (10%) choosing a passive role. When making the decision as part of a research study, most patients preferred an active role (N = 617, 57%), 350 (33%) choosing a collaborative role, and110 (10%) choosing a passive role. CONCLUSION: Most women in this study preferred to share in decision making. Participants had somewhat different role preferences for clinical and research contexts, with greater preference for active roles in the research context. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We advocate for practice guidelines that incorporate discussion of decision role as an integral part of patient centered care and shared decision-making and recognize that more work is needed to inform guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand decision role preferences in women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age for return of results of genome sequencing in research and clinical settings. METHODS:Participants were surveyed about communication and decision-making preferences related to genome sequencing results and factors that may affect these preferences. The primary outcome was decision role preference (Control Preference Scale) for selecting what results to receive within medical care or within a research study. RESULTS: For results returned as part of medical care, most patients preferred a collaborative (N = 481, 45%) or active (N = 488, 45%) role with only 107 (10%) choosing a passive role. When making the decision as part of a research study, most patients preferred an active role (N = 617, 57%), 350 (33%) choosing a collaborative role, and110 (10%) choosing a passive role. CONCLUSION: Most women in this study preferred to share in decision making. Participants had somewhat different role preferences for clinical and research contexts, with greater preference for active roles in the research context. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We advocate for practice guidelines that incorporate discussion of decision role as an integral part of patient centered care and shared decision-making and recognize that more work is needed to inform guidelines.
Authors: Kimberly A Kaphingst; Jewel D Stafford; Lucy D'Agostino McGowan; Joann Seo; Christina R Lachance; Melody S Goodman Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Rashmi Kumar; P Todd Korthuis; Somnath Saha; Geetanjali Chander; Victoria Sharp; Jonathon Cohn; Richard Moore; Mary Catherine Beach Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Nancy K Janz; Ann Hamilton; Jennifer J Griggs; Amy K Alderman; Mahasin Mujahid; Steven J Katz Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-11
Authors: Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Madeleine J Murtagh Journal: Per Med Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 2.512