OBJECTIVE: Many groups recommend assessment of patient preferences particularly for patients with advanced, incurable cancer. We, therefore, developed the Patient Preference Assessment Tool (PPAT) to ascertain patient preferences in order to inform clinician recommendations and improve shared decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the PPAT's impact on clinicians' strength of recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Clinicians recorded the strength of their recommendation on a Likert scale before viewing the patient's PPAT. After viewing the PPAT, the clinician discussed the clinical trial with the patient and then recorded the strength of recommendation again. If there was a change, the clinician noted the reason for the change: clinical findings or patient preference. Clinicians were interviewed about the acceptability of the tool. Our threshold for determining if a change in recommendation due to the PPAT was significant was 20%, given the multiple factors influencing a clinician's recommendation. We also noted the type of phase I conversation observed based on classifications defined in prior work-priming, treatment-options, trial logistics, consent. RESULTS: N = 29. The strength of the clinicians' recommendations changed due to patient preferences in 7 of 29 (24%) of the conversations. The seven changes due to preferences were all in the 23 treatment-options conversations, for an impact rate of 30% in this type of conversation. 82% of clinicians found the PPAT useful. CONCLUSION: The PPAT was impactful in an academic setting, exceeding our 20% impact threshold. This tool helps achieve the important goal of incorporating patient preferences into shared decision-making about clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: Many groups recommend assessment of patient preferences particularly for patients with advanced, incurable cancer. We, therefore, developed the Patient Preference Assessment Tool (PPAT) to ascertain patient preferences in order to inform clinician recommendations and improve shared decision-making. The aim of this study is to assess the PPAT's impact on clinicians' strength of recommendations for phase I oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Clinicians recorded the strength of their recommendation on a Likert scale before viewing the patient's PPAT. After viewing the PPAT, the clinician discussed the clinical trial with the patient and then recorded the strength of recommendation again. If there was a change, the clinician noted the reason for the change: clinical findings or patient preference. Clinicians were interviewed about the acceptability of the tool. Our threshold for determining if a change in recommendation due to the PPAT was significant was 20%, given the multiple factors influencing a clinician's recommendation. We also noted the type of phase I conversation observed based on classifications defined in prior work-priming, treatment-options, trial logistics, consent. RESULTS: N = 29. The strength of the clinicians' recommendations changed due to patient preferences in 7 of 29 (24%) of the conversations. The seven changes due to preferences were all in the 23 treatment-options conversations, for an impact rate of 30% in this type of conversation. 82% of clinicians found the PPAT useful. CONCLUSION: The PPAT was impactful in an academic setting, exceeding our 20% impact threshold. This tool helps achieve the important goal of incorporating patient preferences into shared decision-making about clinical trials.
Authors: Richard F Brown; Elyse Shuk; Natasha Leighl; Phyllis Butow; Jamie Ostroff; Shawna Edgerson; Martin Tattersall Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Thomas J Smith; Paul R Helft; David J Debono; Scott R Berry; Dana S Wollins; Daniel M Hayes; Jamie H Von Roenn; Lowell E Schnipper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rebecca D Pentz; Kristopher A Hendershot; Louisa Wall; Taylor E White; Susan K Peterson; Cheryl B Thomas; Jennifer McCormick; Michael J Green; Colleen Lewis; Zachary Luke Farmer; Fay J Hlubocky; Tehseen Dossul; Margie D Dixon; Yuan Liu; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Carolina Salvador; Taofeek K Owonikoko; R Donald Harvey; Fadlo R Khuri Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Neal J Meropol; Kevin P Weinfurt; Caroline B Burnett; Andrew Balshem; Al B Benson; Liana Castel; Sandra Corbett; Michael Diefenbach; Darrell Gaskin; Yun Li; Sharon Manne; John Marshall; Julia H Rowland; Elyse Slater; Daniel P Sulmasy; David Van Echo; Shakira Washington; Kevin A Schulman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Louisa Wall; Zachary Luke Farmer; Margaret White Webb; Margie D Dixon; Ajay Nooka; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.486