Patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment: A systematic review

Patient Characteristics and the Extent to Which Clinicians Involve Patients in Decision Making: Secondary Analyses of Pooled Data

BACKGROUND

The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

OBJECTIVE

To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.

MAIN MEASURES

In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.

RESULTS

We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.

HIGHLIGHTS

Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

Effects of a shared decision-making implementation programme on patient-centred communication in oncology-Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a need for better implementation of patient-centred (PC) communication and shared decision-making (SDM) in routine cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether a programme to implement SDM in oncology had effects on PC communication in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

This study constitutes a secondary analysis of data derived from an implementation trial applying a stepped wedge design that, among other strategies, incorporated training and coaching to enhance the PC communication skills of physicians.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We analysed audio recordings of clinical encounters collected in three departments of a comprehensive cancer centre in Germany before and after rolling out the implementation programme.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

We assessed the PC communication skills of physicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Each recording was rated by two researchers using the German version of the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), an observer-based measure of PC communication. Interrater reliability of the outcome measure was acceptable but moderate. Demographic data of patients participating in audio recordings were analysed.

METHODS

Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 146 encounters, 74 before and 72 after implementation, were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 57.1 years (SD = 13.8), 70.3% were female, the largest portion of patients had medium formal education (32.4%) and were (self-) employed (37.8%). No statistically significant effect of the implementation programme on the physicians' PC communication skills was found.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that the investigated programme to implement SDM in oncology, including training and coaching, had no effects on PC communication in clinical encounters. These results are in contrast to other studies that report the effects of specific training or coaching on PC communication. Reasons for the lack of effect include the short duration of our training compared to other studies, limited reliability and moderate interrater reliability of the 4HCS scale, limited reach of the intervention programme as well as the inclusion of physicians regardless of their exposure to the interventions.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to develop implementation strategies that improve physicians' PC communication skills.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Data on patients and clinical encounters with patients and physicians were analysed. There was no other patient or public involvement.

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care: A systematic review and metasynthesis

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation have been observed, and barriers and limitations, both generally and in the palliative setting, have been highlighted. More knowledge about the process of shared decision-making in palliative cancer care would assist in addressing these limitations.

AIM

To identify and synthesise qualitative data on how people with cancer, informal carers and healthcare professionals experience and perceive shared decision-making in palliative cancer care.

DESIGN

A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. We analysed data using inductive thematic analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) from inception until June 2023, supplemented by backward searches.

RESULTS

We identified and included 23 studies, reported in 26 papers. Our analysis produced four analytical themes; (1) Overwhelming situation of 'no choice', (2) Processes vary depending on the timings and nature of the decisions involved, (3) Patient-physician dyad is central to decision-making, with surrounding support and (4) Level of involvement depends on interactions between individuals and systems.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care is a complex process of many decisions in a challenging, multifaceted and evolving situation where equipoise and choice are limited. Implications for practice: Implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice requires (1) clarifying conceptual confusion, (2) including members of the interprofessional team in the shared decision-making process and (3) adapting the approach to the ambiguous, existential situations which arise in palliative cancer care.

Patient readiness for shared decision making about treatment: Conceptualisation and development of the ReadySDM

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness.

METHODS

We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM ) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision-making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self-awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self-efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20-item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting.

CONCLUSION

We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM . The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Multiple people with lived experience were involved in various phases of the study. They were asked for input on the study design, the conceptualisation of readiness, and the development of the questionnaire.

Racial and ethnic disparities in knowledge, attitudes, and invitation to participate in clinical trials among cancer survivors in the United States: An analysis of the 2020 U.S. HINTS

Background

Despite the use of clinical trials to provide gold-standard evidence of cancer treatment and intervention effectiveness, racial/ethnic minorities are frequently underrepresented participants. Our objective was to evaluate racial/ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes towards clinical trials among U.S. cancer survivors.

Methods

We leveraged the 2020 Health Informational National Trends Survey (HINTS) data (February-June 2020), which is a weighted, nationally representative survey of 3865 adults (≥18 years), including cancer survivors. We descriptively evaluated cancer survivor's (n = 553) knowledge of clinical trials, and trusted sources of information regarding clinical trials. Using Poisson regression, we estimated predictors of self-reported knowledge of clinical trials.

Results

Among cancer survivors, 82 % were NH-White and 60 % self-reported to at least have some knowledge about clinical trials. When asked about factors that would influence their decision to participate in clinical trials, participants across racial groups frequently chose "I would want to get better" and "If the standard care was not covered by my insurance." NH-White (76 %), NH-Black (78 %), and Hispanic/Latinx (77 %) cancer survivors reported their trusted source of information about clinical trials was their health care provider; NH-Asian cancer survivors reported their health care provider (51 %) as well as government health agencies (30 %) as trusted sources. Cancer survivors with only a high school degree were less likely to have any knowledge of clinical trials compared to those with a Baccalaureate degree or more (aPR:0.61;95 % CI:0.45-0.83).

Conclusion

Health care providers are a trusted source of clinical trial information.

Role Preferences in Medical Decision Making: Relevance and Implications for Health Preference Research

Health preference research (HPR) is being increasingly conducted to better understand patient preferences for medical decisions. However, patients vary in their desire to play an active role in medical decisions. Until now, few studies have considered patients' preferred roles in decision making. In this opinion paper, we advocate for HPR researchers to assess and account for role preferences in their studies, to increase the relevance of their work for medical and shared decision making. We provide recommendations on how role preferences can be elicited and integrated with health preferences: (1) in formative research prior to a health preference study that aims to inform medical decisions or decision makers, (2a) in the development of health preference instruments, for instance by incorporating a role preference instrument and (2b) by clarifying the respondent's role in the decision prior to the preference elicitation task or by including role preferences as an attribute in the task itself, and (3) in statistical analysis by including random parameters or latent classes to raise awareness of heterogeneity in role preferences and how it relates to health preferences. Finally, we suggest redefining the decision process as a model that integrates the role and health preferences of the different parties that are involved. We believe that the field of HPR would benefit from learning more about the extent to which role preferences relate to health preferences, within the context of medical and shared decision making.

Psychological empowerment and quality of life in haematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients: A quantitative study

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between psychological empowerment, depression, anxiety, and quality of life in people with haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

DESIGN

A longitudinal prospective study.

METHODS

A sample of 150 people with haematological was recruited at Santaros Clinics in Lithuania between September 2020 and April 2022. Demographic characteristics, cancer-related characteristics, depression, anxiety, psychological empowerment and quality of life (QoL) were assessed using self-report questionnaires before and 10-12 weeks after HSCT. Descriptive statistics, correlation and moderation analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The results showed that psychological empowerment had a significant correlation with patients' depression, anxiety and QoL. Patients who were more empowered before HSCT had a subjectively better QoL before and after HSCT and were less depressed after transplantation. The results showed that empowerment was a moderator between depression and QoL after transplantation, but it had a significant effect on the QoL only among patients who are less depressed.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

With this study, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of the psychological experiences of people with HSCT. Particularly, psychological empowerment is an important factor in preparing for this treatment. Medical professionals like nurses can be crucial contributors to implementing and strengthening psychological empowerment.

Personalizing precision medicine: Patients with AML perceptions about treatment decisions

BACKGROUND

This study aims to explore patients' with acute myeloid leukemia perceptions about precision medicine and their preferences for involvement in this new area of shared decision-making.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted in Finland, Italy and Germany (n = 16). The study population included patients aged 24-79 years. Interviews were analyzed with thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Patient's perceived lack of knowledge as a barrier for their involvement in decision-making. Treatment decisions were often made rapidly based on the patient's intuition and trust for the physician rather than on information, in situations that decrease the patient's decision capacity. The patients emphasized that they are in a desperate situation that makes them willing to accept treatment with low probabilities of being cured.

CONCLUSIONS

The study raised important issues regarding patients' understanding of precision medicine and challenges concerning how to involve patients in medical decision-making. Although technical advances were viewed positively, the role of the physician as an expert and person-of-trust cannot be replaced.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Regardless of patients' preferences for involvement in decision-making, information plays a crucial role for patients' perceived involvement in their care. The concepts related to precision medicine are complex and will imply challenges to patient education.

Real-world evidence research in metastatic colorectal cancer: raising awareness of the need for patient contributions

Real-world evidence (RWE) research helps determine whether outcomes observed in clinical trials happen in real-life clinical practice. RWE research may help patients receive more appropriate treatment, closer to their needs and wishes. RWE for metastatic colorectal cancer is currently limited. The PROMETCO RWE study is an important example of an ongoing initiative that focuses on patient-reported outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients play an active role throughout the RWE research process, including study design, participation and results dissemination. This involvement can encourage greater patient empowerment through active engagement, potentially resulting in various benefits that can lead to improved clinical outcomes. Greater patient engagement can increase involvement in RWE, helping more patients to access the benefits of RWE research. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03935763 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Getting specific: participation preference in urooncological decision-making

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is the gold standard for good clinical practice, and thus, psychometric instruments have been established to assess patients' generic preference for participation (e.g., the Autonomy Preference Index, API). However, patients' preferences may vary depending on the specific disease and with respect to the specific decision context. With a modified preference index (API-Uro), we assessed patients' specific participation preference in preference-sensitive decisions pertaining to urological cancer treatments and compared this with their generic participation preference.

METHODS

In Study 1, we recruited (N = 469) urological outpatients (43.1% urooncological) at a large university hospital. Participation preference was assessed with generic measures (API and API case vignettes) and with the disease-specific API-Uro (urooncological case vignettes describing medical decisions of variable difficulty). A polychoric exploratory factor analysis was used to establish factorial validity and reduce items. In Study 2, we collected data from N = 204 bladder cancer patients in a multicenter study to validate the factorial structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Differences between the participation preference for different decision contexts were analyzed.

RESULTS

Study 1: Scores on the specific urooncological case vignettes (API-Uro) correlated with the generic measure (r = .44) but also provided incremental information. Among the disease-specific vignettes of the API-Uro, there were two factors with good internal consistency (α ≥ .8): treatment versus diagnostic decisions. Patients desired more participation for treatment decisions (77.8%) than for diagnostic decisions (22%), χ²(1) = 245.1, p ≤ .001. Study 2: Replicated the correlation of the API-Uro with the API (r = .39) and its factorial structure (SRMR = .08; CFI = .974). Bladder cancer patients also desired more participation for treatment decisions (57.4%) than for diagnostic decisions (13.3%), χ²(1) =84, p ≤ .001.

CONCLUSIONS

The desire to participate varies between treatment versus diagnostic decisions among urological patients. This underscores the importance of assessing participation preference for specific contexts. Overall, the new API-Uro has good psychometric properties and is well suited to assess patients' preferences. In routine care, measures of participation preference for specific decision contexts may provide incremental, allowing clinicians to better address their patients' individual needs.

Patients' preferences in therapeutic decision-making in digestive oncology: a single centre cross-sectional observational study

Considering the preferences in Shared Decision Making (SDM) of patients with Digestive Cancer (DC) is crucial to ensure the quality of care. To date, there is limited information on preferences in SDM of patients with DC. The objectives of this study were to describe digestive cancer patients' preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making and to identify variables associated with these preferences. An observational prospective study in a French university cancer center has been conducted. Patients completed two questionnaires to qualify and quantify their preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making: the Control Preference Scale (CPS) and the Autonomy Preference Index (API), which is composed of the Decision Making (DM) score and the Information Seeking (IS) score. Associations between these scores and socio-demographic data, disease-related data, coping strategies (Brief-COPE), physical (QLQ-C30) and psychological (HADS) quality of life were tested. One-hundred fifteen patients returned the questionnaires. The majority of patients reported a passive (49.1%) or a collaborative (43.0%) CPS status. The mean DM score was 39.4 Variables associated with decision-making preferences were occupational status and time since diagnosis. The identification of variables associated with patients' preferences for involvement in decision-making can help make clinicians aware of patients' needs and wishes. However, it can only be determined by interviewing the patient individually.

Determinants of cancer patients' involvement in treatment decision-making based on the COM-B model: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Cancer patients' involvement in treatment decision-making is affected by various factors, with the mechanisms not readily understood. This study explores the underlying mechanisms based on the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior (COM-B) model and literature review.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted and 300 cancer patients conveniently recruited from three tertiary hospitals validly completed the self-administered questionnaires. Structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to test the hypothesized model.

RESULTS

The findings generally supported the hypothesized model, which could explain 45% of the variance in cancer patients' involvement in treatment decision-making. Cancer patients' health literacy and perceived facilitation of involvement from health professionals had direct and indirect effects on their actual involvement, with the total effect β = 0.594, β = 0.223, P < 0.001, respectively. Patients' views of involvement in treatment decision-making had a direct effect on their actual involvement (β = 0.296, P < 0.001) and completely mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and their actual involvement (β = 0.040, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support the COM-B model's explanatory potential in the context of cancer patients' involvement in treatment decision-making.

When attitudes and beliefs get in the way of shared decision-making: A mediation analysis of participation preference

INTRODUCTION

Certain sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., older age) have previously been identified as barriers to patients' participation preference in shared decision-making (SDM). We aim to demonstrate that this relationship is mediated by the perceived power imbalance that manifests itself in patients' negative attitudes and beliefs about their role in decision-making.

METHODS

We recruited a large sample (N = 434) of outpatients with a range of urological diagnoses (42.2% urooncological). Before the medical consultation at a university hospital, patients completed the Patients' Attitudes and Beliefs Scale and the Autonomy Preference Index. We evaluated attitudes as a mediator between sociodemographic factors and participation preference in a path model.

RESULTS

We replicated associations between relevant sociodemographic factors and participation preference. Importantly, attitudes and beliefs about one's own role as a patient mediated this relationship. The mediation path model explained a substantial proportion of the variance in participation preference (27.8%). Participation preferences and attitudes did not differ for oncological and nononcological patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients' attitudes and beliefs about their role determine whether they are willing to participate in medical decision-making. Thus, inviting patients to participate in SDM should encompass an assessment of their attitudes and beliefs. Importantly, negative attitudes may be accessible to change. Unlike stable sociodemographic characteristics, such values are promising targets for interventions to foster more active participation in SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was part of a larger project on implementing SDM in urological practice. Several stakeholders were involved in the design, planning and conduction of this study, for example, three authors are practising urologists, and three are psychologists with experience in patient care. In addition, the survey was piloted with patients, and their feedback was integrated into the questionnaire. The data presented in this study is based on patients' responses. Results may help to empower our patients.

Perception of survival/laryngeal preservation trade-off in advanced T-stage laryngeal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the perception of the survival/laryngeal preservation trade-off in advanced T-stage laryngeal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Science Direct databases were searched using the keywords "cancer, neoplasms, trade-off. One hundred and eighty four articles were found; 176 of these, without data in the Abstract documenting the survival/laryngeal preservation trade-off for advanced T-stage laryngeal cancer, were excluded. Eight articles, totaling 1,052 interviewees, were read to document modalities of evaluation, trade-off thresholds, and variables influencing the perception of trade-off.

RESULTS

Evaluation of trade-off was based on responses in group discussions, interviews and questionnaires and on patient file analysis. One study reported that 28.2% of respondents could not make a decision between options, and in 4 studies 22% to 80% of respondents would not consider jeopardizing survival. A mean 2-3 year gain (range, 6 months to 5 years) in survival was required before preferring total laryngectomy to chemoradiotherapy. The percentage loss of disease-free survival tolerated by respondents who would consider a trade-off to preserve the larynx ranged from 5% to 100%, for a median 30%. Variables influencing trade-off comprised respondent status (patient/healthcare provider/healthy subject) and characteristics (job, having children) and treatment data (amount and modalities of information delivered, survival estimates after radiation therapy, health status after treatment). A time for reflection after diagnosis and good quality information were important for respondents.

CONCLUSION

Several consequences emerge from these data. The first is to consider induction chemotherapy, to give the patient time to make an informed choice. The second is to not to give up teaching total laryngectomy The third is to determine whether the team's own results match the information delivered to patients.

A prospective cohort study of decision-making role preferences of patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to examine (1) the evolution of patients-caregiver dyad decision-making role preferences over 3 years and the predictors of these preferences; and (2) discordance in decision-making role preferences among dyads.

METHODS

A total of 311 patients with advanced solid cancer and their caregivers in Singapore reported their preferences for decision-making roles every 3 months. The predictors for decision-making role preferences among dyads were identified via the actor-partner interdependence framework using a mixed-effect ordered logistic model.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients and caregivers preferring patient-led decision-making was higher at the end of third year compared to baseline (patients: 40% vs. 20%, p value <.01; caregivers: 33% vs. 21%, p value = .03). Patients with female (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; p value <.01) and older (1-year OR, 1.02; p value <.01) caregivers and younger patients (1-year OR, 0.97; p value <.01) preferred higher involvement in decision-making. Caregivers with tertiary education (vs. lower education) (OR, 1.59; p value = .02) and those who accurately understood patients' treatment goals (OR, 1.37; p value = .01) preferred greater patient involvement in decision-making. Conversely, caregivers of female patients (OR, 0.68; p value = .03) and younger patients (1-year OR, 0.98; p value <.01) preferred lesser patient involvement in decision-making. The proportion of patient-caregiver dyads with discordance in preferred decision-making was lower at the end of the third year (51%) compared to baseline (68%) (p value <.01).

CONCLUSION

Despite a reduction in the proportion of dyads with discordance toward the end-of-life, the percentage with discordance remained high throughout the illness trajectory. Interventions facilitating open communication between dyads should be pursued in efforts to decrease dyadic discordance.

The Impact of Patient-Centered Care on Cancer Patients' QOC, Self-Efficacy, and Trust Towards Doctors: Analysis of a National Survey

Patient-centered approaches impact cancer patients' perceptions and outcomes in different ways. This study explores the impact of patient-centered care practices on cancer patients' quality-of-care (QOC), self-efficacy, and trust in their doctors. We utilized cross-sectional national survey data from the National Cancer Institute collected between 2017 and 2020. All estimates were weighted using the jackknife method. We used multivariable logistic regression to test our hypotheses adjusted for the demographics of the 1932 cancer patients that responded to the survey. Findings indicate that patient-centered communication resulted in better QOC, self-efficacy, and trust in doctors. In addition, engagement in their care improved patients' trust in cancer-related information received from doctors. QOC and patients' trust in doctors were significantly improved with the patients' understanding of the next steps, addressing feelings, clear explanation of the problems, spending enough time with the clinicians, addressing uncertainty, and involvement in decisions. Patients who were given a chance to ask questions were significantly more likely to trust their doctors. Technology use did not impact any of these interactions. Patient-centered strategies should consider the needs of the patients in the cancer settings to improve overall outcomes. Organizations should also build strategies that are goal-oriented and centered around the patients' needs, as standard strategies cannot induce the wanted results.

Prognostic factors and outcomes of surgical intervention for patients with spinal metastases secondary to lung cancer: an update systematic review and meta analysis

PURPOSE

Lung cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors. Most patients develop spinal metastases during the course of cancer and suffer skeletal-related events. Currently, no consensus has been reached on the prognostic factors in patients undergoing surgeries. This study aimed to answer two questions: (1) what are the effects of surgical intervention, and (2) what are the factors associated with postoperative survival.

METHODS

Searches were performed on electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus for articles published before February of 2022, involving the survival factors of patients with spinal metastasis. Multiple data items were considered, such as baseline demographics, surgical details, clinical outcome, and prognostic factors. The analysis was performed in Review Manager (RevMan) 5.5. The prognostic factors of survival were analyzed with univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Finally, 14 studies with 813 patients were identified. Their 6, 12, and 24 months survival rates ranged from 18 to 58%, 18 to 22.4%, and 0 to 58.5%, respectively. The pooled hazard ratio of preoperative ambulatory status and the number of involved vertebrae demonstrated statistical significance, while no significant prognostic effect on the overall survival was found for targeted therapy, visceral metastases, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or postoperative ambulatory status.

CONCLUSION

Overall, surgical intervention could achieve significant pain relief and neurological function improvements. For patients receiving surgery for spinal metastasis from lung cancer, preoperative ambulatory status and the number of involved vertebrae were significant prognostic factors associated with their survival.

Preferences and Attitudes Towards Life-Sustaining Treatments of Older Chinese Patients and Their Family Caregivers

Purpose

The family plays a major role in medical decision-making in China. Little is known about whether family caregivers understand patients' preference for receiving life-sustaining treatments and are able to make decisions consistent with them when patients are incapable of making medical decisions. We aimed to compare preferences and attitudes concerning life-sustaining treatments of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study among 150 dyads of community-dwelling patients with chronic conditions and their family caregivers from four communities in Zhengzhou. We measured preferences for life-sustaining treatments (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, tube feeding, hemodialysis, chemotherapy), who should decide, the timing of making decisions, and their most important consideration.

Results

The consistency of preferences for life-sustaining treatments between patients and family caregivers was poor to fair, with kappa values ranging from 0.071 for mechanical ventilation to 0.241 for chemotherapy. Family caregivers more frequently preferred each life-sustaining treatment for the patients than the patients themselves. More family caregivers than patients preferred the patient to make their own decisions about life-sustaining treatments (29% of patients and 44% of family caregivers). The most important considerations when deciding on life-sustaining treatments are family burden and the patient's comfort and state of consciousness.

Conclusion

There is a poor to fair consistency between community-dwelling older patients and their family caregivers in their preferences and attitudes towards life-sustaining treatments. A minority of patients and family caregivers preferred that patients make their own medical decisions. We recommend healthcare professionals to encourage discussions between patients and their families on future care to improve the mutual understanding within the family about medical decision-making.

Change of genitourinary cancer patients' perception and expectations over the course of pharmacotherapy

To determine the course of treatment while considering the patients' desires, we examined trends regarding patients' perception and expectations over the course of cancer pharmacotherapy. We retrospectively reviewed interview sheets filled in by patients with advanced urogenital cancers when they started a new pharmacotherapy regimen between 2014 and 2020. The responses to the following questions were analyzed: 1) How did your doctor explain the treatment objectives?; 2) Are you willing to receive treatment?; and 3) When the standard treatment becomes difficult to continue, would you like to try another treatment even if it may cause severe side effects? A total of 277 patients answered the interview sheet. The percentage of patients who accurately perceived the treatment objectives among patients receiving 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line regimens was 67%, 79%, and 93%, respectively. The percentage significantly improved over the course of pharmacotherapy (p = 0.0057). The percentage of patients who indicated that they were willing to receive treatment in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line regimens was 80%, 83%, and 86%, respectively. The percentage of patients who indicated that they wanted to try another treatment when the standard treatment became difficult to continue in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line regimens was 56%, 64%, and 59%, respectively. The percentage of patients who accurately perceived the objective of pharmacotherapy increased over the course of pharmacotherapy. The rate of patients who were willing to receive treatment and try other treatments when the standard treatment became too difficult to continue remained consistently high.

Safety and Efficacy of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Uncinate Process Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

This is a meta-analysis and systematic review of the available literature.

OBJECTIVE

In the case of severe foraminal stenosis, conducting uncinate process resection (UPR) during ACDF could achieve complete nerve root decompression and significant relief of neurological symptoms for CR. However, there is some controversy regarding its necessity and safety. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of ACDF with UPR and ACDF.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: Medline, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, VIP, and CNKI. And the following data items were considered: baseline demographics, efficacy evaluation indicators, radiographic outcome, and surgical details.

RESULTS

10 studies were finally identified, including 746 patients who underwent ACDF with UPR compared to 729 patients who underwent ACDF. The group of ACDF with UPR had statistically longer intraoperative time (95% CI: 4.83, 19.77, P = .001) and more intraoperative blood loss (95% CI: 12.23, 17.76, P < .001). ACDF with UPR obtained a significantly better improvement of Arm VAS at postoperative first follow-up (95% CI: -1.85, -.14 P = .02). There was no significant difference found in improvement of Neck VAS at postoperative latest follow-up (95% CI: -.88, .27, P = .30), improvement of Arm VAS at postoperative latest follow-up (95% CI: -.59, -.01, P = .05), improvement of NDI (95% CI: -2.34, .33, P = .14), JOA (95% CI: -.24, .43, P = .56), change of C2-C7 lordosis (95% CI: -.87, 1.33, P = .68), C2-C7 SVA (95% CI: -.73, 5.08, P = .14), T1 slope (95% CI: -2.25, 1.51, P = .70), and fusion rate (95% CI: .83, 1.90 P = .29).

CONCLUSION

ACDF with UPR is an effective and necessary surgical method for CR patients with severe foraminal stenosis.

Patient preferences and experiences of participation in surgical cancer care

BACKGROUND

Quality cancer care necessitates opportunities for patient participation, supposedly recognizing the individual's preferences and experiences for being involved in their health and healthcare issues. Previous research shows that surgical cancer patients wish to be more involved, requiring professionals to be sensitive of patients' needs.

AIMS

To explore preference-based patient participation in surgical cancer care.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation tool (4Ps) was used, which includes 12 attributes of preferences for and experiences of patient participation. Data were analyzed with descriptive and comparative statistical methods.

RESULTS

The results are based on a total of 101 questionnaires. Having reciprocal communication and being listened to by healthcare staff were commonly deemed crucial for patient participation. While 60% of the patients suggested that taking part in planning was crucial for their participation, they had experienced this only to some extent. Learning to manage symptoms and phrasing personal goals were items most often representing insufficient conditions for preference-based patient participation.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

To support person-centered surgical care, further efforts to suffice preference-based participation are needed, including opportunities for patients to share their experiences and engage in the planning of healthcare activities.

Preferred and perceived participation roles of oncological patients in medical decision-making: Results of a survey among users of the German Cancer Information Service

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are facing a variety of treatment and other disease-related decisions. This study aims to provide insights into preferred and perceived participation roles in decision-making among patients with diverse tumors using the German Cancer Information Service (CIS).

METHODS

Patients' decision-making preferences and experiences were assessed as a part of a cross-sectional survey among CIS users. An adapted version of the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) was used to assess preferred and perceived participation roles in eight different areas of medical decision-making (e.g., choice of medication, termination of treatment). Logistic regression analyses were applied to explore preference matching and to analyze associations between participation roles and sociodemographic variables. Moreover, we examined preferences and perceptions of participation roles across different decision situations.

RESULTS

In the final sample (N = 1566, 64.9% female, mean age = 61.6), almost half of the patients (47.1%) preferred to take a collaborative role in decisions on treatment methods, whereas 36.3% preferred an active role and 15.9% a passive role. Collaborative role preferences frequently (40.7%) coincided with experiencing a passive role and predicted a reduced chance of a match between preferences and experiences (OR = 0.57, p = .001). A higher level of education was associated with a lower chance of preferring and perceiving a passive role (OR = 0.85, p < .01). Compared with men, women had increased odds of preferring (OR = 1.45, p < .05) and of actually taking (OR = 2.04, p < .001) a passive role in medical encounters. Preferred participation roles regarding treatment methods were highly correlated with preferences in all other decision areas (r > .50, p < .001) except decisions about family involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals well-known deficits in the fulfilment of patients' collaborative role preferences across different areas of medical decision-making in a sample of CIS users characterized by high information-seeking behavior. Participation roles were not only influenced by the patients' level of education but also by their gender. The gender effect may be more pronounced than previous studies suggest. These effects should be considered in the development of interventions to promote shared decision-making. Additionally, study results indicate that preferences for participation in decisions about treatment methods, as assessed by the CPS, can be generalized to other areas of medical decision-making.

Are older patients less likely to be treated for pancreatic cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pancreatic cancer is the seventh commonest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Although prognosis is poor, both surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy improve survival. However, it has been suggested that not all pancreatic cancer patients who may benefit from treatment receive it. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the existence of age-related inequalities in receipt of first-line pancreatic cancer treatment. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and grey literature were searched for population-based studies investigating treatment receipt, reported by age, for patients with primary pancreatic cancer from inception until 4th June 2020, and updated 5th August 2021. Studies from countries with universal healthcare were included, to minimise influence of health system-related economic factors. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken comparing likelihood of treatment receipt in older versus younger patients. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Eighteen papers were included; 12 independent populations were eligible for meta-analysis. In most studies, < 10% of older patients were treated. Older age (generally ≥65) was significantly associated with reduced receipt of any treatment (OR=0.14, 95% CI 0.10-0.21, n = 12 studies), surgery (OR=0.15, 95% CI 0.09-0.24, n = 9 studies) and chemotherapy as a primary treatment (OR=0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.24, n = 5 studies). The effect of age was independent of methodological quality, patient population or time-period of patient diagnosis and remained in studies with confounder adjustment. The mean quality score of included studies was 6/8. Inequalities in receipt of healthcare interventions across social groups is a recognised concern internationally. This review shows that older age is significantly, and consistently, associated with non-receipt of treatment in pancreatic cancer. However, there are risks and side-effects associated with pancreatic cancer treatment. Further research on what influences patient and professional treatment decision-making is required to better understand these apparent inequalities.

Towards a novel approach guiding the decision-making process for anticancer treatment in patients with advanced cancer: framework for systemic anticancer treatment with palliative intent

Background

Weighing risks and benefits is currently the primary criterion for decisions regarding systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) in far advanced cancer patients, also in the modern immunotherapy- and molecular-targeted driven oncology. Decision aids rarely include substantially key concepts of early integrated palliative care (PC) and communication science. We compiled decisional factors (DFs) important for guiding the use of SACT with palliative intent (SACT-PI) and explored these DFs regarding their applicability in routine clinical care.

Patients and methods

Clinician (participants: n = 28) and patient (n = 15) focus groups were conducted in an integrated oncology and PC setting. Thematic analysis was used to identify DFs. A Delphi survey of clinicians ranked the importance of DFs in routine decision-making. DFs were aligned with elements of the typical decision-making process, resulting in an eight-step guide for making SACT-PI decisions in clinical practice.

Results

Eight focus groups revealed 55 DFs relating to established topics like providing information and risk–benefit analysis, as well as to PC topics like patients’ attitudes, beliefs, and hopes; patient–physician interaction; and physician attitudes. Agreement on the relative importance was reached for 34 (62%) of 55 DFs, assigned to five elements: patient/family, clinicians/system, patient-clinician-interaction, information/patient education, risk–benefit weighting/actual decision. These themes are embedded in a potential clinically useful SACT-PI Decision Framework, which includes eight steps: assess, educate, verify, reflect, discuss, weigh, pause, and decide.

Conclusions

The SACT-PI Decision Framework integrates subjective patient factors, interpersonal factors, and PC issues into decision-making. Our findings complement existing decision aids and prompt lists by framing DFs in the context of SACT-PI and enforce the decision ‘process’, not the decision act. Further research is needed to explore the relative importance of DFs in specific patient situations and test structured decision-making processes, such as our SACT-PI Decision Framework, against standard care.

•

Patient-centered decisions in advanced cancer care demand a stepwise decisional process, not a single decision act.

•

The decision process includes key palliative care domains, e.g. illness understanding, symptom control, or end-of-life preparation.

•

Patients’ attitudes, beliefs, hopes, patient–physician interaction, and physician attitudes demand structured observation.

•

The SACT-PI Decision Framework includes concrete steps: assess, educate, verify, reflect, discuss, weigh, pause, decide.

•

Interprofessionally working oncology clinicians may transform decision-making processes in oncology beyond decision aids.

Code Status Transitions in Patients with High-Risk Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Patients with AML often undergo code status transitions near the end of life; median time from last code status change to death was 2 days.

Patients participated in only 60.5% of final code status transitions, highlighting a need for earlier conversations to improve involvement.

Patients with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML) often experience intensive medical care at the end of life (EOL), including high rates of hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Despite this, studies examining code status transitions are lacking. We conducted a mixed-methods study of 200 patients with high-risk AML enrolled in supportive care studies at Massachusetts General Hospital between 2014 and 2021. We defined high-risk AML as relapsed/refractory or diagnosis at age ≥60. We used a consensus-driven medical record review to characterize code status transitions. At diagnosis, 86.0% (172/200) of patients were “full code” (38.5% presumed, 47.5% confirmed) and 8.5% had restrictions on life-sustaining therapies. Overall, 57.0% of patients experienced a transition during the study period. The median time from the last transition to death was 2 days (range, 0-350). Most final transitions (71.1%) were to comfort measures near EOL; only 60.5% of patients participated in these last transitions. We identified 3 conversation types leading to transitions: informative conversations focusing on futility after clinical deterioration (51.0%), anticipatory conversations at the time of acute deterioration (32.2%), and preemptive conversations (15.6%) before deterioration. Younger age (B = 0.04; P = .002) and informative conversations (B = −2.79; P < .001) were associated with shorter time from last transition to death. Over two-thirds of patients were “presumed full code” at diagnosis of high-risk AML, and most experienced code status transitions focused on the futility of continuing life-sustaining therapies near EOL. These results suggest that goals-of-care discussions occur late in the illness course for patients with AML and warrant interventions to increase earlier discussions regarding EOL preferences.

Patient participation in electronic nursing documentation: An interview study among home-care patients

Background

Patients are increasingly expected to take an active role in their own care. Participation in nursing documentation can support patients to take this active role since it provides opportunities to express care needs and preferences. Yet, patient participation in electronic nursing documentation is not self‐evident.

Objective

To explore how home‐care patients perceive their participation in electronic nursing documentation.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 21 home‐care patients. Interview transcripts were analysed in an iterative process based on the principles of reflexive inductive thematic analysis.

Results

We identified a typology with four patient types: ‘high need, high ability’, ‘high need, low ability’, ‘low need, high ability’ and ‘low need, low ability’. Several patients felt a need for participation because of their personal interest in health information. Others did not feel such a need since they trusted nurses to document the information that is important. Patients' ability to participate increased when they could read the documentation and when nurses helped them by talking about the documentation. Barriers to patients' ability to participate were having no electronic devices or lacking digital skills, a lack of support from nurses and the poor usability of electronic patient portals.

Conclusion

Patient participation in electronic nursing documentation varies between patients since home‐care patients differ in their need and ability to participate. Nurses should tailor their encouragement of patient participation to individual patients' needs and abilities. Furthermore, they should be aware of their own role and help patients to participate in the documentation.

Patient or Public Contribution

Home‐care patients were involved in the interviews.

Shared decision making in cancer treatment: A Dutch national survey on patients' preferences and perceptions

Objective

Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision making yet. Therefore, we aim to explore to what extent discussion of therapy options, treatment consequences, and personal priorities is preferred and perceived by (former) cancer patients.

Methods

An online questionnaire was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations among (former) cancer patients in 2018.

Results

Among 3785 (former) cancer patients, 3254 patients (86%) had discussed treatments with their health care provider (HCP) and were included for analysis. Mean age was 62.1 ± 11.5; 55% were female. Discussing the option to choose no (further) treatment was rated by 2751 (84.5%) as very important (median score 9/10—IQR 8–10). Its occurrence was perceived by 28% (N = 899), and short‐ and long‐term treatment consequences were discussed in 81% (N = 2626) and 53% (N = 1727), respectively. An unmet wish to discuss short‐ and long‐term consequences was reported by 22% and 26%, respectively. Less than half of the (former) cancer patients perceived that personal priorities (44%) and future plans (34%) were discussed.

Conclusion

In the perception of (former) cancer patients, several essential elements for effective SDM are insufficiently discussed during cancer treatment decision making.