Jessica K Roydhouse1,2, Roee Gutman3, Ira B Wilson1, Kenneth L Kehl4, Nancy L Keating5. 1. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 2. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School and Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making, including the elicitation of patient preferences regarding treatment decisions, is considered part of high-quality cancer care. However, patients may not be able to self-report due to illness, and therefore proxy reports may be used. We sought to determine the difference between proxy and patient reports about patient decisions and preferences among patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy using data from a large, population-based survey of patients with incident lung or colorectal cancer. METHODS: Of 3573 patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy, 3108 self-reported and 465 had proxies reporting on their behalf about preferred and actual decision roles regarding this treatment. Preferred and actual decision roles were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale, and categorized as shared, patient-controlled, or doctor-controlled. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient and proxy responses and whether preferences were met. The models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables and patient/proxy-reported health status. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of all respondents reported actual roles in decisions that matched their preferred roles (role attainment). Proxies and patients were similarly likely to report role attainment (65% vs 63%). In adjusted analyses, proxies were more likely report role attainment (OR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.02-1.59), but this difference was smaller if health variables were excluded from the model (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.92-1.41). CONCLUSION: Most patients' preferences for treatment participation were met. Surveys from proxies appear to yield small differences on the reports of attainment of preferred treatment decision-making roles in cancer care vs surveys from patients.
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making, including the elicitation of patient preferences regarding treatment decisions, is considered part of high-quality cancer care. However, patients may not be able to self-report due to illness, and therefore proxy reports may be used. We sought to determine the difference between proxy and patient reports about patient decisions and preferences among patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy using data from a large, population-based survey of patients with incident lung or colorectal cancer. METHODS: Of 3573 patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy, 3108 self-reported and 465 had proxies reporting on their behalf about preferred and actual decision roles regarding this treatment. Preferred and actual decision roles were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale, and categorized as shared, patient-controlled, or doctor-controlled. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient and proxy responses and whether preferences were met. The models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables and patient/proxy-reported health status. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of all respondents reported actual roles in decisions that matched their preferred roles (role attainment). Proxies and patients were similarly likely to report role attainment (65% vs 63%). In adjusted analyses, proxies were more likely report role attainment (OR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.02-1.59), but this difference was smaller if health variables were excluded from the model (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.92-1.41). CONCLUSION: Most patients' preferences for treatment participation were met. Surveys from proxies appear to yield small differences on the reports of attainment of preferred treatment decision-making roles in cancer care vs surveys from patients.
Authors: Alexis Colley; Jodi Halpern; Steven Paul; Guy Micco; Maureen Lahiff; Fay Wright; Jon D Levine; Judy Mastick; Marilyn J Hammer; Christine Miaskowski; Laura B Dunn Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; Neeraj K Arora; Katherine L Kahn; Jennifer L Malin; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Mark C Hornbrook; Catarina I Kiefe; Yulei He; Julie M Urmie; Jane C Weeks; David P Harrington Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Clifford Ko; John Z Ayanian; David Harrington; David R Nerenz; Katherine L Kahn; Julie Ganther-Urmie; Paul J Catalano; Alan M Zaslavsky; Robert B Wallace; Edward Guadagnoli; Neeraj K Arora; Maryse D Roudier; Patricia A Ganz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-02-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David J Meyers; Maricruz Rivera-Hernandez; Daeho Kim; Laura M Keohane; Vincent Mor; Amal N Trivedi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Hannah R Abrams; Ryan D Nipp; Lara Traeger; Mitchell W Lavoie; Matthew J Reynolds; Nneka N Ufere; Annie C Wang; Kofi Boateng; Thomas W LeBlanc; Areej El-Jawahri Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-07-26
Authors: Jessica K Roydhouse; Matthew L Cohen; Henrik R Eshoj; Nadia Corsini; Emre Yucel; Claudia Rutherford; Katarzyna Wac; Allan Berrocal; Alyssa Lanzi; Cindy Nowinski; Natasha Roberts; Angelos P Kassianos; Veronique Sebille; Madeleine T King; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 4.147