Women's perceptions of their involvement in treatment decision making for early stage breast cancer

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Perceived problems with involvement in decision making about breast cancer treatment and care: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To examine perceived problems with involvement in medical decision making among people with breast cancer from various phases of the cancer care trajectory.

METHODS

Breast cancer outpatients (n = 663) from 13 treatment centres completed a survey of perceived involvement in treatment and care decisions in the last month, psychological distress, demographic and clinical factors. A subsample (n = 98) from three centres completed a follow-up survey on preferred and perceived treatment decision making roles.

RESULTS

Overall, 112 (17 %) of 663 respondents from 13 oncology centres had experienced problems with involvement in decision making about their treatment and care in the last month, and of these, 36 (32 %) reported an unmet need for help with this problem. Elevated psychological distress was associated with 5.7 times the odds of reporting this problem and 6.6 times the odds of reporting this unmet need in the last month. Among the follow-up subsample (n = 98), 39% (n = 38) reported discordance between preferred and perceived role in a major treatment decision. Psychological distress was not associated with this outcome.

CONCLUSION

Psychological distress was significantly associated with recently experiencing problems with involvement in treatment and care decisions, but not with misalignment of preferred and perceived roles in prior major treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is a need to maintain support for patient involvement in healthcare decisions across the cancer care continuum.

Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVES

Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006-2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics. A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were: "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions.

CONCLUSION

Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

Empowering patients in decision-making in radiation oncology - can we do better?

The decision as to whether or not a patient should receive radiation therapy as part of their cancer treatment is based on evidence‐based practice and on recommended international consensus treatment guidelines. However, the merit of involving the patients' individual preferences and values in the treatment decision is frequently overlooked. Here, we review the current literature pertaining to shared decision‐making (SDM) in the field of radiation oncology, including discussion of the patient's perception of radiation therapy as a treatment option and patient involvement in clinical trials. The merit of decision aids during the SDM process in radiation oncology is considered, as are patient preferences for active or passive involvement in decisions about their treatment. Clarity of terminology, a better understanding of effective strategies and increased resources will be needed to ensure SDM in radiation oncology becomes a reality.

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists

BACKGROUND

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice.

CONCLUSION

Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

Evaluating a Decision Aid for Improving Decision Making in Patients with Early-stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Early-stage breast cancer patients face a series of complex treatment decisions, with the first typically being choice of locoregional treatment. There is a need for tools to support patients in this decision-making process.

METHODS

We developed an innovative, online locoregional treatment tool based on International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria. We evaluated its impact on patient knowledge about treatment and appraisal of decision making in a pilot study using a clinical sample of newly diagnosed, breast cancer patients who were randomized to view the decision aid website first or complete a survey prior to viewing the decision aid. Differences in knowledge and decision appraisal between the two groups were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Computer-generated preferences for treatment were compared with patients' stated preferences using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

One hundred and one newly diagnosed patients were randomized to view the website first or take a survey first. Women who viewed the website first had slightly higher, though not significantly, knowledge about surgery (p = 0.29) and reconstruction (p = 0.10) than the survey-first group. Those who viewed the website first also appraised their decision process significantly more favorably than did those who took the survey first (p < 0.05 for most decision outcomes). There was very good concordance between computer-suggested and stated treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that an interactive decision tool shows promise for supporting early-stage breast cancer patients with complicated treatment decision making.

Mapping the Decision-Making Process for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer

Background. Studies show adjuvant endocrine therapy increases survival and decreases risk of breast cancer recurrence for hormone receptor–positive tumors. Yet studies also suggest that adherence rates among women taking this therapy may be as low as 50% owing largely to adverse side effects. Despite these rates, research on longitudinal patient decision making regarding this therapy is scant. Objective. We sought to map the decision-making process for women considering and initiating adjuvant endocrine therapy, paying particular attention to patterns of uncertainty and decisional change over time. Methods. A longitudinal series of semistructured interviews conducted at a multispecialty health care organization in Northern California with 35 newly diagnosed patients eligible for adjuvant endocrine therapy were analyzed. Analysis led to the identification and indexing of 3 new decision-making constructs—decisional phase, decisional direction, and decisional resolve—which were then organized using a visual matrix and examined for patterns characterizing the decision-making process. Results. Our data reveal that most patients do not make a single, discrete decision to take or not take hormone therapy but rather traverse multiple decisional states, characterized by 1) phase, 2) direction, and 3) strength of resolve. Our analysis tracks these decisional states longitudinally using a grayscale-coded matrix. Our data show that decisional resolve wavers not just when considering therapy, as the existing concept of decisional conflict suggests, but even after initiating it, which may signal future decisions to forgo therapy. Conclusions. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, like other chronic care decisions, has a longer decision-making process and implementation period. Thus, theoretical, empirical, and clinical approaches should consider further exploring the new concept and measurement of decisional resolve, as it may help to improve subsequent medication adherence.

A Decision Aid for Women Considering Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy for Operable Invasive Breast Cancer: Development and Protocol of a Phase II Evaluation Study (ANZ1301 DOMINO)

Background

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy is offered to selected women with large and/or highly proliferative operable breast cancers. This option adds further complexity to an already complex breast cancer treatment decision tree. Patient decision aids are an established method of increasing patient involvement and knowledge while decreasing decisional conflict. There is currently no decision aid available for women considering neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

Objective

We aimed to develop a decision aid for women diagnosed with operable breast cancer and considered suitable for neoadjuvant systemic therapy, and the protocol for a multicenter pre-post study evaluating the acceptability and feasibility of the decision aid.

Methods

The decision aid was developed through literature review, expert advisory panel, adherence to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, and iterative review. The protocol for evaluation of the decision aid consists of the following: eligible women will undertake a series of questionnaires prior to and after using the decision aid. The primary endpoint is decision aid acceptability to patients and investigators and the feasibility of use. Secondary endpoints include change in decisional conflict, participant knowledge, and information involvement preference. Feasibility is defined as the proportion of eligible participants who use the decision aid to help inform their treatment decision.

Results

This study has recruited 29 out of a planned 50 participants at four Australian sites. A 12-month recruitment period is expected with a further 12-months follow-up.

Conclusions

The decision aid has the potential to allow patients with operable breast cancer, who have been offered neoadjuvant systemic therapy, decreased decisional conflict, and greater involvement in the decision. If this study finds that an online decision aid is feasible and acceptable, it will be made widely available for routine clinical practice.

Trial Registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001267640; http://www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx?searchTxt=ACTRN12614001267640&isBasic=True (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6gh7BPZdG)

Medical therapeutic itineraries of women with breast cancer diagnosis affiliated to the People's Health Insurance in San Luis Potosí, central Mexico

This study aims to describe the medical itineraries followed by breast cancer women affiliated to the People's Health Insurance in San Luis Potosí, central Mexico. We used an ethnographic approach based on oral histories of 12 women diagnosed with breast cancer in the year prior to the first meeting. Two face-to-face sessions per participant lasting 60 minutes each were conducted followed by a telephone interview. Content and diachronic analyses were used. Three main itineraries were identified: (1) diagnostic process, (2) final diagnosis to treatment, and (3) cancer control and relapse. Findings suggested that infrastructure and human resources to adequately screen and timely diagnose breast cancer were scant and insufficiently trained, respectively. Deferral of medical assessment was related with lack of information about breast cancer consequences, with women being afraid of a positive result, and with economic constraints. The current screening program needs to be redesigned to prevent diagnostic delays, as these seem to explain the high frequency of advanced stages reported at the time of diagnosis.