Isabel B de Angst1, Paul J M Kil2, Chris H Bangma3, Johanna J M Takkenberg4. 1. Department of Urology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022, GC, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, the Netherlands. Electronic address: i.deangst@etz.nl. 2. Department of Urology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022, GC, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Electronic address: p.kil@etz.nl. 3. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, the Netherlands. Electronic address: c.h.bangma@erasmusmc.nl. 4. Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.j.m.takkenberg@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perspectives of the multidisciplinary team concerning shared decision-making (SDM) in treatment decisions for older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey among Dutch healthcare providers was conducted to assess healthcare providers' perspectives on patient involvement in decision-making and the value of a decision aid (DA) in the decision-making process. Treatment recommendations were assessed using hypothetical cases in which providers were asked to evaluate their likelihood of pursuing listed treatment options. RESULTS: In total, 170 Dutch healthcare providers, including 82 urologists, 31 oncologists, and 57 oncology nurses completed the survey. Sixty-two percent of urologists, 65% of oncologists, and 51% of oncology nurses found that mCRPC patients take a passive role in decision-making and delegate treatment decisions to doctors due to advanced age (p = .45). Yet, 70% of urologists, 71% of oncologists, and 63% of oncology nurses agreed that mCRPC patients should be always involved in decision-making (p = .91). Fifty-two percent of urologists and 55% of oncologists stated that they are inadequately trained to apply SDM in clinical practice. Conversely, only 20% of oncology nurses believed that oncology nurses are inadequately trained. Fifty-four percent of all providers considered a DA suitable to support these patients and their healthcare providers in the decision-making process. All hypothetical cases showed variation in treatment recommendations among providers, with each of the five treatments ranging from extremely likely to extremely unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation of treatment recommendations observed among the multidisciplinary team suggests that mCRPC patients and their healthcare providers may benefit from implementation of informed SDM. Given the perceived passive role of older patients with mCRPC in decision-making, interventions to engage them are needed. With slightly more than half of respondents finding DAs useful to facilitate the decision-making process, development and implementation of a DA would be an interesting field of research.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perspectives of the multidisciplinary team concerning shared decision-making (SDM) in treatment decisions for older patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey among Dutch healthcare providers was conducted to assess healthcare providers' perspectives on patient involvement in decision-making and the value of a decision aid (DA) in the decision-making process. Treatment recommendations were assessed using hypothetical cases in which providers were asked to evaluate their likelihood of pursuing listed treatment options. RESULTS: In total, 170 Dutch healthcare providers, including 82 urologists, 31 oncologists, and 57 oncology nurses completed the survey. Sixty-two percent of urologists, 65% of oncologists, and 51% of oncology nurses found that mCRPC patients take a passive role in decision-making and delegate treatment decisions to doctors due to advanced age (p = .45). Yet, 70% of urologists, 71% of oncologists, and 63% of oncology nurses agreed that mCRPC patients should be always involved in decision-making (p = .91). Fifty-two percent of urologists and 55% of oncologists stated that they are inadequately trained to apply SDM in clinical practice. Conversely, only 20% of oncology nurses believed that oncology nurses are inadequately trained. Fifty-four percent of all providers considered a DA suitable to support these patients and their healthcare providers in the decision-making process. All hypothetical cases showed variation in treatment recommendations among providers, with each of the five treatments ranging from extremely likely to extremely unlikely. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation of treatment recommendations observed among the multidisciplinary team suggests that mCRPC patients and their healthcare providers may benefit from implementation of informed SDM. Given the perceived passive role of older patients with mCRPC in decision-making, interventions to engage them are needed. With slightly more than half of respondents finding DAs useful to facilitate the decision-making process, development and implementation of a DA would be an interesting field of research.
Authors: Giulia I Lane; Ajith Dupati; Ji Qi; Stephanie Ferrante; Rodney L Dunn; Roshan Paudel; Daniela Wittmann; Lauren Wallner; Donna L Berry; Chad Ellimoottil; James Montie; J Quentin Clemens Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2022-01-01
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Maya Abdallah; Sindhuja Kadambi; Megan Wells; Anita J Kumar; Jason H Mendler; Jane L Liesveld; Marsha Wittink; Kristen O'Dwyer; Michael W Becker; Colin McHugh; Wendy Stock; Navneet S Majhail; Tanya M Wildes; Paul Duberstein; Supriya Gupta Mohile; Heidi D Klepin Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2020-10-11
Authors: Kevin M Veen; Isabel B de Angst; Mostafa M Mokhles; Hans M Westgeest; Malou Kuppen; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Winald R Gerritsen; Paul J M Kil; Johanna J M Takkenberg Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Nahara Anani Martínez-González; Andreas Plate; Stefan Markun; Oliver Senn; Thomas Rosemann; Stefan Neuner-Jehle Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Søren Birkeland; Susanne S Pedersen; Anders K Haakonsson; Michael J Barry; Nina Rottmann Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 2.796