Literature DB >> 31899375

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

Emma C Lape1, Jeffrey N Katz1, Justin A Blucher1, Angela T Chen1, Genevieve S Silva1, Joseph H Schwab2, Tracy A Balboni3, Elena Losina1, Andrew J Schoenfeld4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of spinal metastases the risks of surgery must be balanced against potential benefits, particularly in light of limited life-expectancy. Patient experiences and preferences regarding decision-making in this context are not well explored.
PURPOSE: We performed a qualitative study involving patients receiving treatment for spinal metastatic disease. We sought to understand factors that influenced decision-making around care for spinal metastases. STUDY
SETTING: Three tertiary academic medical centers. PATIENT SAMPLE: We recruited patients presenting for treatment of spinal metastatic disease at one of three tertiary centers in Boston, MA. OUTCOME MEASURES: We conducted semistructured interviews using a guide that probed participants' experiences with making treatment decisions.
METHODS: We performed a thematic analysis that produced a list of themes, subthemes, and statement explaining how the themes related to the study's guiding questions. Patients were recruited until thematic saturation was reached.
RESULTS: We interviewed 23 participants before reaching thematic saturation. The enormity of treatment decisions, and of the diagnosis of spinal metastases itself, shaped participant preferences for who should take responsibility for the decision and whether to accept treatments bearing greater risk of complications. Pre-existing participant beliefs about decision-making and about surgery interacted with the clinical context in a way that tended to promote accepting physician recommendations and delaying or avoiding surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of spinal metastatic disease played an outsized role in shaping participant preferences for agency in treatment decision-making. Further research should address strategies to support patient understanding of treatment options in clinical contexts-such as spinal metastases-characterized by ominous underlying disease and high-risk, often urgent interventions.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; Provider communication; Qualitative research; Radiation oncology; Spinal metastases; Surgical management

Year:  2019        PMID: 31899375      PMCID: PMC7246131          DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.12.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  20 in total

1.  Patient choice of breast cancer treatment: impact on health state preferences.

Authors:  Daniel Polsky; Nancy L Keating; Jane C Weeks; Kevin A Schulman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 2.  Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in oncology: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Jordan R Covvey; Khalid M Kamal; Erin E Gorse; Zumi Mehta; Trupti Dhumal; Elham Heidari; Deepika Rao; Christopher Zacker
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Laboratory markers as useful prognostic measures for survival in patients with spinal metastases.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Marco L Ferrone; Peter G Passias; Justin A Blucher; Lauren B Barton; John H Shin; Mitchel B Harris; Joseph H Schwab
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Reliability of a spinal metastasis prognostic score to model 1-year survival.

Authors:  C Rory Goodwin; Andrew J Schoenfeld; Nancy A Abu-Bonsrah; Tomas Garzon-Muvdi; Eric W Sankey; Mitchel B Harris; Daniel M Sciubba
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 4.166

5.  The next generation in surgical research for patients with spinal metastases.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Marco L Ferrone
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 6.  Breaking Bad News in Oncology: A Metasynthesis.

Authors:  Guilhem Bousquet; Massimiliano Orri; Sabine Winterman; Charlotte Brugière; Laurence Verneuil; Anne Revah-Levy
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-06-29       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Prediction of Quality of Life and Survival After Surgery for Symptomatic Spinal Metastases: A Multicenter Cohort Study to Determine Suitability for Surgical Treatment.

Authors:  David Choi; Zoe Fox; Todd Albert; Mark Arts; Laurent Balabaud; Cody Bunger; Jacob M Buchowski; Maarten H Coppes; Bart Depreitere; Michael G Fehlings; James Harrop; Norio Kawahara; Juan A Martin-Benlloch; Eric M Massicotte; Christian Mazel; Fetullah C Oner; Wilco Peul; Nasir Quraishi; Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Katsuro Tomita; Jorit Jan Verlaan; Michael Wang; H Alan Crockard
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) treated with palliative decompression: Surgical timing and survival rate.

Authors:  Wan-Yu Lo; Shu-Hua Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization.

Authors:  Benjamin Saunders; Julius Sim; Tom Kingstone; Shula Baker; Jackie Waterfield; Bernadette Bartlam; Heather Burroughs; Clare Jinks
Journal:  Qual Quant       Date:  2017-09-14

10.  Relational autonomy in breast diseases care: a qualitative study of contextual and social conditions of patients' capacity for decision-making.

Authors:  Patti Shih; Frances Rapport; Anne Hogden; Mia Bierbaum; Jeremy Hsu; John Boyages; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  5 in total

1.  Randomized controlled trials and high-intensity spine surgery.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 4.166

2.  A Natural History of Patients Treated Operatively and Nonoperatively for Spinal Metastases Over 2 Years Following Treatment: Survival and Functional Outcomes.

Authors:  Grace X Xiong; Miles W A Fisher; Joseph H Schwab; Andrew K Simpson; Lananh Nguyen; Daniel G Tobert; Tracy A Balboni; John H Shin; Marco L Ferrone; Andrew J Schoenfeld
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Evaluating ambulatory function as an outcome following treatment for spinal metastases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lananh Nguyen; Nicole Agaronnik; Marco L Ferrone; Jeffrey N Katz; Andrew J Schoenfeld
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Clinician Experiences in Treatment Decision-Making for Patients with Spinal Metastases: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Lauren B Barton; Kaetlyn R Arant; Justin A Blucher; Danielle L Sarno; Kristin J Redmond; Tracy A Balboni; Matthew Colman; C Rory Goodwin; Ilya Laufer; Rick Placide; John H Shin; Daniel M Sciubba; Elena Losina; Jeffrey N Katz; Andrew J Schoenfeld
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 6.558

5.  Characterizing Health-Related Quality of Life by Ambulatory Status in Patients with Spinal Metastases.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Caleb M Yeung; Daniel G Tobert; Lananh Nguyen; Peter G Passias; John H Shin; James D Kang; Marco L Ferrone
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2022-01-15       Impact factor: 3.241

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.