Literature DB >> 31354095

Impact of Timing on Measurement of Decision Quality and Shared Decision Making: Longitudinal Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Patients.

Karen R Sepucha1, Aisha T Langford2, Jeffrey K Belkora3, Yuchiao Chang1, Beverly Moy4, Ann H Partridge5, Clara N Lee6.   

Abstract

Purpose.The objective of this study was to examine whether scores of shared decision-making measures differ when collected shortly after (1 month) or long after (1 year) breast cancer surgical treatment decisions. Methods. Longitudinal, multisite survey of breast cancer (BC) patients, with measurements at 1 month and 1 year after surgery at 4 cancer centers. Patients completed the BC Surgery Decision Quality Instrument (used to generate a knowledge score, ratings of goals, and concordance with treatment preferences) and Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process survey at both time points. We tested several hypotheses related to the scores over time, including whether the scores discriminated between sites that did and did not offer formal decision support services. Exploratory analyses examined factors associated with large increases and decreases in scores over time. Results. Across the 4 sites, 229 patients completed both assessments. The mean total knowledge scores (69.2% [SD 16.6%] at 1 month and 69.4% [SD 17.7%] at 1 year, P = 0.86), SDM Process scores (2.7 [SD 1.1] 1 month v. 2.7 [SD 1.2] 1 year, P = 0.68), and the percentage of patients receiving their preferred treatment (92% at 1 month and 92% at 1 year, P = 1.0) were not significantly different over time. The site using formal decision support had significantly higher knowledge and SDM Process scores at 1 month, and only the SDM Process scores remained significantly higher at 1 year. A significant percentage of patients had large changes in their individual knowledge and SDM Process scores, with increases balancing out decreases. Conclusion. For population-level assessments, it is reasonable to survey BC patients up to a year after the decision, greatly increasing feasibility of measurement. For those evaluating decision support interventions, shorter follow-up is more likely to detect an impact on knowledge scores.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bias; breast neoplasms; choice behavior; decision making; goals; mastectomy; questionnaires; segmental; surveys

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31354095      PMCID: PMC7240785          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19862545

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  45 in total

1.  Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care.

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Susan Edgman-Levitan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Making patient-centered cancer care a reality.

Authors:  Karen R Sepucha; Michael J Barry
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Evaluating a Decision Aid for Improving Decision Making in Patients with Early-stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Lisa Newman; Jennifer J Griggs; Mary Ann Kosir; Steven J Katz
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: A systematic review.

Authors:  Fania R Gärtner; Hanna Bomhof-Roordink; Ian P Smith; Isabelle Scholl; Anne M Stiggelbout; Arwen H Pieterse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Importance of patient reported outcome measures versus clinical outcomes for breast cancer patients evaluation on quality of care.

Authors:  Melissa Kool; Joost R M van der Sijp; Judith R Kroep; Gerrit-Jan Liefers; Ilse Jannink; Onno R Guicherit; Robbert Vree; Esther Bastiaannet; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2016-03-26       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 7.  Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

Authors:  France Légaré; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Marie-Joëlle Cossi; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-09-15

8.  Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Karen R Sepucha; Jeffrey K Belkora; Yuchiao Chang; Carol Cosenza; Carrie A Levin; Beverly Moy; Ann Partridge; Clara N Lee
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Coaching patients in the use of decision and communication aids: RE-AIM evaluation of a patient support program.

Authors:  Jeff Belkora; Shelley Volz; Meredith Loth; Alexandra Teng; Margot Zarin-Pass; Dan Moore; Laura Esserman
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Measurement challenges in shared decision making: putting the 'patient' in patient-reported measures.

Authors:  Paul J Barr; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 3.377

View more
  2 in total

1.  Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment.

Authors:  K D Valentine; Brittney Mancini; Ha Vo; Suzanne Brodney; Carol Cosenza; Michael J Barry; Karen R Sepucha
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Long-Term Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life After Breast-Conserving Therapy: A Prospective Study Using the BREAST-Q.

Authors:  Ilona Stolpner; Jörg Heil; Fabian Riedel; Markus Wallwiener; Benedikt Schäfgen; Manuel Feißt; Michael Golatta; André Hennigs
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 5.344

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.