Christine M Veenstra1,2, Lauren P Wallner2,3,4, Paul H Abrahamse5, Nancy K Janz2,6, Steven J Katz2,3,7, Sarah T Hawley2,3,6,7,8. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 7. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 8. Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer involve multiple decision support persons (DSPs) in treatment decision making, yet little is known about DSP engagement in decision making and its association with patient appraisal of the decision process. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer reported to Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015 were surveyed 7 months after their diagnosis. The individual most involved in each respondent's decision making (the key DSP) was surveyed. DSP engagement was measured across 3 domains: 1) informed about decisions, 2) involved in decisions, and 3) aware of patient preferences. Patient decision appraisal included subjective decision quality (SDQ) and deliberation. This study evaluated bivariate associations with chi-square tests between domains of DSP engagement and independent DSP variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of DSP engagement with patient decision appraisal. RESULTS: In all, 2502 patients (68% response rate) and 1203 eligible DSPs (70% response rate) responded. Most DSPs were husbands/partners or daughters, were white, and were college graduates. Husbands/partners were more likely to be more informed, involved, and aware (all P values < .01). English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos had a higher extent of (P = .02) but lower satisfaction with involvement (P < .01). A highly informed DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported SDQ (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.08; P = .03). A highly aware DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported deliberation (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.47; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, informal DSPs were engaged with and positively contributed to patients' treatment decision making. To improve decision quality, future interventions should incorporate DSPs.
BACKGROUND: Patients with breast cancer involve multiple decision support persons (DSPs) in treatment decision making, yet little is known about DSP engagement in decision making and its association with patient appraisal of the decision process. METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer reported to Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in 2014-2015 were surveyed 7 months after their diagnosis. The individual most involved in each respondent's decision making (the key DSP) was surveyed. DSP engagement was measured across 3 domains: 1) informed about decisions, 2) involved in decisions, and 3) aware of patient preferences. Patient decision appraisal included subjective decision quality (SDQ) and deliberation. This study evaluated bivariate associations with chi-square tests between domains of DSP engagement and independent DSP variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of DSP engagement with patient decision appraisal. RESULTS: In all, 2502 patients (68% response rate) and 1203 eligible DSPs (70% response rate) responded. Most DSPs were husbands/partners or daughters, were white, and were college graduates. Husbands/partners were more likely to be more informed, involved, and aware (all P values < .01). English- and Spanish-speaking Latinos had a higher extent of (P = .02) but lower satisfaction with involvement (P < .01). A highly informed DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported SDQ (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.08; P = .03). A highly aware DSP was associated with higher odds of patient-reported deliberation (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.47; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based study, informal DSPs were engaged with and positively contributed to patients' treatment decision making. To improve decision quality, future interventions should incorporate DSPs.
Authors: Kathryn A Martinez; Ken Resnicow; Geoffrey C Williams; Marlene Silva; Paul Abrahamse; Dean A Shumway; Lauren P Wallner; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-06-22
Authors: Christopher R Friese; Kathryn A Martinez; Paul Abrahamse; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Reshma Jagsi; Jennifer J Griggs; Sarah T Hawley; Steven J Katz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kathryn A Martinez; Yun Li; Ken Resnicow; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Laurel L Northouse; Maria C Katapodi; Lixin Song; Lingling Zhang; Darlene W Mood Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-08-13 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Paula M Lantz; Nancy K Janz; Barbara Salem; Monica Morrow; Kendra Schwartz; Lihua Liu; Steven J Katz Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2006-12-06
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: Nancy K Janz; Mahasin S Mujahid; Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer J Griggs; Ann S Hamilton; Steven J Katz Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Jennifer J Griggs; Ann S Hamilton; John J Graff; Nancy K Janz; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Barbara Salem; Steven J Katz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lauren P Wallner; Paul Abrahamse; Jaspreet K Uppal; Christopher R Friese; Ann S Hamilton; Kevin C Ward; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Jennifer Acosta; Rebecca Sharar; Sarah T Hawley; Arden M Morris Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Katrina R Ellis; Paul Abrahamse; Kevin C Ward; Arden M Morris; Sarah T Hawley Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Thomas M Braun; Paul H Abrahamse; Daniela Wittmann; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.711