Lisa P Spees1, Megan C Roberts2, Andrew N Freedman3, Eboneé N Butler4, William M P Klein3, Irene Prabhu Das5, Janet S de Moor3. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA. Electronic address: lspees21@email.unc.edu. 2. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA; Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA. 3. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA. 4. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, USA. 5. Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Next generation sequencing (NGS) may aid in tumor classification and treatment. Barriers to shared decision-making may influence use of NGS. We examined, from oncologists' perspectives, whether barriers to involving patients/families in decision-making were associated with NGS use. METHODS: Using data from the first national survey of medical oncologists' perspectives on precision medicine (N = 1281), we approached our analyses in two phases. Bivariate analyses initially evaluated associations between barriers to involving patients/families in deciding to use NGS and provider- and organizational-level characteristics. Modified Poisson regressions then examined associations between patient/family barriers and NGS use. RESULTS: Approximately 59 % of oncologists reported at least one barrier to involving patients/families in decision-making regarding NGS use. Those reporting patient/family barriers tended to have fewer genomic resources at their practices, to be in rural or suburban areas, and to have a higher proportion of Medicaid patients. However, these barriers were not associated with NGS use. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists encounter barriers to involving patients/families in NGS testing decisions. Organizational barriers may also potentially play a role in testing decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To foster patient-centered care, strategies to support patient involvement in genomic testing decisions are needed, particularly among practices in low-resource settings.
OBJECTIVE: Next generation sequencing (NGS) may aid in tumor classification and treatment. Barriers to shared decision-making may influence use of NGS. We examined, from oncologists' perspectives, whether barriers to involving patients/families in decision-making were associated with NGS use. METHODS: Using data from the first national survey of medical oncologists' perspectives on precision medicine (N = 1281), we approached our analyses in two phases. Bivariate analyses initially evaluated associations between barriers to involving patients/families in deciding to use NGS and provider- and organizational-level characteristics. Modified Poisson regressions then examined associations between patient/family barriers and NGS use. RESULTS: Approximately 59 % of oncologists reported at least one barrier to involving patients/families in decision-making regarding NGS use. Those reporting patient/family barriers tended to have fewer genomic resources at their practices, to be in rural or suburban areas, and to have a higher proportion of Medicaid patients. However, these barriers were not associated with NGS use. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists encounter barriers to involving patients/families in NGS testing decisions. Organizational barriers may also potentially play a role in testing decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To foster patient-centered care, strategies to support patient involvement in genomic testing decisions are needed, particularly among practices in low-resource settings.
Authors: Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Krystina Lewis; Michael J Barry; Carol L Bennett; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: R Liang; B Meiser; S Smith; N A Kasparian; C R Lewis; M Chin; G V Long; R Ward; A M Menzies; J N Harris-Wai; R Kaur Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 2.520
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
Authors: Stewart C Alexander; Amy M Sullivan; Anthony L Back; James A Tulsky; Roberta E Goldman; Susan D Block; Susan K Stewart; Maureen Wilson-Genderson; Stephanie J Lee Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 3.894
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: Kathleen R Blazer; Deborah J Macdonald; Julie O Culver; Carin R Huizenga; Robert J Morgan; Gwen C Uman; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 8.822