Literature DB >> 30872466

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists.

Gabrielle B Rocque1,2,3, Aysha Rasool4, Beverly R Williams3, Audrey S Wallace5, Soumya J Niranjan6, Karina I Halilova2, Yasemin E Turkman7, Stacey A Ingram2, Courtney P Williams2, Andres Forero-Torres6,2, Tom Smith8, Smita Bhatia9, Sara J Knight10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.
RESULTS: Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice.
CONCLUSION: Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC. © AlphaMed Press 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision‐making; Interview; Metastatic breast cancer; Patient preferences; Qualitative

Year:  2019        PMID: 30872466      PMCID: PMC6795158          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0711

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  24 in total

1.  Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model.

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Breast Cancer Version 2.2015.

Authors:  William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Ron Balassanian; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Amy Cyr; Anthony D Elias; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon Hermes Giordano; Matthew Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Clifford A Hudis; Steven J Isakoff; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Meena Moran; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Kilian E Salerno; Lee S Schwartzberg; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; George Somlo; Melinda Telli; John H Ward; Dorothy A Shead; Rashmi Kumar
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 11.908

3.  Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: a pooled analysis of studies using the Control Preferences Scale.

Authors:  Jasvinder A Singh; Jeff A Sloan; Pamela J Atherton; Tenbroeck Smith; Thomas F Hack; Mashele M Huschka; Teresa A Rummans; Matthew M Clark; Brent Diekmann; Lesley F Degner
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).

Authors:  C Charles; A Gafni; T Whelan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

5.  The Control Preferences Scale.

Authors:  L F Degner; J A Sloan; P Venkatesh
Journal:  Can J Nurs Res       Date:  1997

6.  Identifying Educational Needs of the Multidisciplinary Cancer Team in the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Priya Wanchoo; Chris Larrison; Carol Rosenberg; Naomi Ko; Cynthia Cantril; Naomi Moeller; Ruchit Parikh; Ana-Marija Djordjevic
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 11.908

7.  Implementation and Impact of Patient Lay Navigator-Led Advance Care Planning Conversations.

Authors:  Gabrielle B Rocque; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang; Soumya J Niranjan; Courtney P Williams; Bradford E Jackson; Karina I Halilova; Kelly M Kenzik; Kerri S Bevis; Audrey S Wallace; Nedra Lisovicz; Richard A Taylor; Maria Pisu; Edward E Partridge; Thomas W Butler; Linda A Briggs; Elizabeth A Kvale
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 3.612

8.  Informed Consent and Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Dina Michels; Maura Cahill
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.840

9.  Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a study of women with early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  R P McQuellon; H B Muss; S L Hoffman; G Russell; B Craven; S B Yellen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  J D Tariman; D L Berry; B Cochrane; A Doorenbos; K Schepp
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-11-25       Impact factor: 32.976

View more
  11 in total

1.  Unmet needs and problems related to employment and working as reported by survivors with metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Mary E Sesto; Cibele B Carroll; Xiao Zhang; Karen B Chen; Abigail Terhaar; Athena S Wilson; Amye J Tevaarwerk
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Cancer as a new chronic disease: Oncology nursing in the 21st Century.

Authors:  Edith Pituskin
Journal:  Can Oncol Nurs J       Date:  2022-02-01

3. 

Authors:  Edith Pituskin
Journal:  Can Oncol Nurs J       Date:  2022-02-01

4.  Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alene Sze Jing Yong; Yi Heng Lim; Mark Wing Loong Cheong; Ednin Hamzah; Siew Li Teoh
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2021-12-02

5.  Patient experiences of decision-making in the treatment of spinal metastases: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Emma C Lape; Jeffrey N Katz; Justin A Blucher; Angela T Chen; Genevieve S Silva; Joseph H Schwab; Tracy A Balboni; Elena Losina; Andrew J Schoenfeld
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 6.  Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Petronella A L Nelleke Seghers; Anke Wiersma; Suzanne Festen; Mariken E Stegmann; Pierre Soubeyran; Siri Rostoft; Shane O'Hanlon; Johanneke E A Portielje; Marije E Hamaker
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  The missing voice in multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Authors:  Gabrielle Rocque; Stephanie Wheeler; Grant R Williams
Journal:  J Geriatr Oncol       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 3.599

8.  Patient-reported factors that influence the vestibular schwannoma treatment decision: a qualitative study.

Authors:  O M Neve; G Soulier; M Hendriksma; A G L van der Mey; A van Linge; P P G van Benthem; E F Hensen; A M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  Health care-related time costs in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Gabrielle B Rocque; Courtney P Williams; Stacey A Ingram; Andres Azuero; Stephen T Mennemeyer; Jennifer Young Pierce; Ryan D Nipp; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Kelly M Kenzik
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 4.452

10.  Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308).

Authors:  Frances C Sherratt; Stephen L Brown; Brian J Haylock; Priya Francis; Helen Hickey; Carrol Gamble; Michael D Jenkinson; Bridget Young
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 5.837

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.