Patients' regrets after participating in a randomized controlled trials depended on their involvement in the decision making

Decision regret of cancer patients after radiotherapy: results from a cross-sectional observational study at a large tertiary cancer center in Germany

PURPOSE

The decision-making process regarding cancer treatment is emotionally challenging for patients and families, harboring the risk of decision regret. We aimed to explore prevalence and determinants of decision regret following radiotherapy.

METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a tertiary cancer center to assess decision regret following radiotherapy. The study employed the German version of the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale (DRS) which was validated in the study population. Decision regret was categorized as absent (0 points), mild (1-25 points), and strong (> 25 points). Various psychosocial outcome measures were collected using validated questionnaires to identify factors that may be associated with decision regret.

RESULTS

Out of 320 eligible patients, 212 participated, with 207 completing the DRS. Median age at start of radiotherapy was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR), 56-72], genders were balanced (105 female, 102 male), and the most common cancer types were breast (n = 84; 41%), prostate (n = 57; 28%), and head-and-neck cancer (n = 19; 9%). Radiotherapy was applied with curative intention in 188 patients (91%). Median time between last radiotherapy fraction and questionnaire completion was 23 months (IQR, 1-38). DRS comprehensibility was rated as good or very good by 98% (196 of 201) of patients. Decision regret was reported by 43% (n = 90) as absent, 38% (n = 78) as mild, and 18% (n = 38) as strong. In the multiple regression analysis, poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, low social support, and dissatisfaction with care were independent risk factors for higher decision regret after radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The German version of the DRS could be used to assess decision regret in a diverse cohort of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Decision regret was prevalent in a considerable proportion of patients. Further studies are necessary to validate these findings and obtain causal factors associated with decision regret after radiotherapy.

Changes of health-related quality of life 6 months after high-risk oncological upper gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary surgery: a single-centre prospective observational study (ChangeQol Study)

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an essential outcome in oncological surgery, particularly for elderly patients undergoing high-risk surgery. Previous studies have suggested that, on average, HRQoL returns to premorbid normal levels in the months following major surgery. However, the averaging of effect over a studied cohort may hide the variation of individual HRQoL changes. The proportions of patients who have a varied HRQoL response (stable, improvement, or a deterioration) after major oncological surgery is poorly understood. The study aims to describe the patterns of these HRQoL changes at 6 months after surgery, and to assess the patients and next-of-kin regret regarding the decision to undergo surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This prospective observational cohort study is carried out at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland. We include patients over 18 years old undergoing gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreas resection or hepatectomy. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients in each group with changes in HRQoL (improvement, stability or deterioration) 6 months after surgery, using a validated minimal clinically important difference of 10 points in HRQoL. The secondary outcome is to assess whether patients and their next-of-kin may regret their decision to undergo surgery at 6 months. We measure the HRQoL using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire before and 6 months after surgery. We assess regret with the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) at 6 months after surgery. Key other perioperative data include preoperative and postoperative place of residence, preoperative anxiety and depression (HADS scale), preoperative disability (WHODAS V.2.0), preoperative frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale), preoperative cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination) and preoperative comorbidities. A follow-up at 12 months is planned.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was first approved by the Geneva Ethical Committee for Research (ID 2020-00536) on 28 April 2020. The results of this study will be presented at national and international scientific meetings, and publications will be submitted to an open-access peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04444544.

Factors associated with enrolment in clinical trials among women with early-stage breast cancer

Background

Clinical trials allow development of innovative treatments and ameliorate the quality of clinical care in oncology. Data show that only a minority of patients are enrolled in clinical trials. We assessed enrolment in clinical trials and its correlates among women with early breast cancer.

Methods

We included 9516 patients with stage I-III breast cancer from the multicenter, prospective CANTO study (NCT01993498), followed-up until year 4 (Y4) post-diagnosis. We assessed factors associated with enrolment using multivariable logistic regression. In exploratory, propensity score matched analyses, we used multiple linear regression to evaluate the relationship of enrolment in clinical trials with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality Of Life (QoL) questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Summary Score and described clinical outcomes (distant disease event, invasive disease event, and death by any cause) according to enrolment.

Results

Overall, 1716 patients (18%) were enrolled in a clinical trial until Y4 post-diagnosis of breast cancer. Socioeconomic factors were not associated with enrolment. Centres of intermediate volume were most likely to enrol patients in clinical trials [versus low volume, odds ratio 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.95), P = 0.0124]. Among 2118 propensity score matched patients, enrolment was associated with better QoL at Y4 (adjusted mean difference versus not enrolled 1.37, 95% CI 0.03-2.71, P = 0.0458), and clinical outcomes (enrolled versus not enrolled, distant disease event 7.3% versus 10.1%, P = 0.0206; invasive disease event 8.2% versus 10.5%, P = 0.0732; death by any cause 2.8% versus 3.7%, P = 0.2707).

Conclusions

In this large study, one in five patients enrolled on a clinical trial until Y4 after diagnosis of early breast cancer. Geographical and centre-related factors were significantly associated with enrolment in clinical trials. Inclusion in clinical trials seemed associated with improved QoL and clinical outcomes. Access to innovation for early-stage breast cancer patients should be encouraged and facilitated by overcoming organizational and geographical barriers to recruitment.

•

The proportion of patients who access innovation through participation in clinical trials is generally limited.

•

Rate of enrolment in clinical trials among women with early breast cancer exceeded what previously found in other settings.

•

Clinical and geographical factors were associated to access to innovation in clinical trials.

•

Enrolment in clinical trials is associated with better quality of life and clinical outcomes.

Shared decision-making and the lessons learned about decision regret in cancer patients

The commentary presents reflections on the literature on post-treatment cancer patient regret. Even though a lot of effort has been made to increase patient satisfaction by engaging them in medical decisions, patient regret remains present in clinical settings. In our commentary, we identify three main aspects of shared decision-making that previously have been shown to predict patient regret. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for physicians involved in the shared decision-making process. In addition, we make methodological suggestions for future research in the field.

Longitudinal regret and information satisfaction after deciding on treatment for localized prostate cancer with or without a decision aid. Results at one-year follow-up in the PCPCC trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of including an online decision aid (DA) during prostate cancer treatment counseling on decisional regret and information satisfaction in a one-year follow-up.

METHODS

Within a cluster RCT, 18 Dutch hospitals were randomized to DA counseling or care-as-usual, patients (n = 382) initially completed questionnaires directly after treatment decision making. Six and twelve months later regret (Decisional Regret Scale) and information satisfaction (SCIP-B) were assessed. Anxious and depressive symptoms (HADS) was included as possible covariate.

RESULTS

After 12 months, 43 participants (15%) regretted their treatment choice and 105 participants (36%) were dissatisfied with the information that was received at the time of decision-making, regardless of being exposed to the DA. Anxious and depressive symptoms at follow-up were associated with regret and information dissatisfaction.

CONCLUSION

No long-term benefical effects emerged from DA usage compared to patients who underwent standard counseling.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

During PCa treatment counseling, healthcare providers should be aware of anxious and depressive symptoms.

[Why and how to promote decision-making autonomy of cancer patients?]

Involvement of patients in decision-making about their health has been promoted nationally and internationally since several years. Despite this, patient (and their relatives) participation remains insufficient and one of the objectives of the current French national cancer policy (Plan cancer 2014-2019) is to give everyone the possibility to play an active role in the management of their care. This overview focuses on decision-making autonomy of cancer patients through two main questions: why and how to promote it? After a brief review of the decision-making models described in the literature in the past decades insisting on the major role of the decisional context and the dynamic character of this context, this article presents a selection of published works which aimed to respond to those 2 questions.

Upward counterfactual thinking and depression: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis examined the strength of association between upward counterfactual thinking and depressive symptoms. Forty-two effect sizes from a pooled sample of 13,168 respondents produced a weighted average effect size of r=.26, p<.001. Moderator analyses using an expanded set of 96 effect sizes indicated that upward counterfactuals and regret produced significant positive effects that were similar in strength. Effects also did not vary as a function of the theme of the counterfactual-inducing situation or study design (cross-sectional versus longitudinal). Significant effect size heterogeneity was observed across sample types, methods of assessing upward counterfactual thinking, and types of depression scale. Significant positive effects were found in studies that employed samples of bereaved individuals, older adults, terminally ill patients, or university students, but not adolescent mothers or mixed samples. Both number-based and Likert-based upward counterfactual thinking assessments produced significant positive effects, with the latter generating a larger effect. All depression scales produced significant positive effects, except for the Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Interview. Research and theoretical implications are discussed in relation to cognitive theories of depression and the functional theory of upward counterfactual thinking, and important gaps in the extant research literature are identified.

Exploring Women's Preferences for the Mode of Delivery in Twin Gestations: Results of the Twin Birth Study

OBJECTIVE

The Twin Birth Study, an international, multi-center randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the risks of planned cesarean with planned vaginal delivery for twin pregnancies. The aim of this component of the trial was to understand participants' perspectives of study participation and preferences for the mode of delivery.

METHODS

A mixed-methods questionnaire was distributed to study participants 3 months after giving birth. The questionnaire contained Likert scales and open-ended questions about the experience of being enrolled in a clinical trial and of childbirth, including the mode of delivery. Quantitative data were analyzed using SAS to generate descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify categories and themes.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent of trial participants completed the questionnaire. Across all groups, the majority of women would participate in a study like this one again if given the opportunity. Main benefits of participating were as follows: benefits to one and one's babies, altruism, and receiving quality care. Randomization for the mode of delivery was challenging for women because of the desire to be involved in decision-making. Findings related to childbirth experience and the mode of delivery demonstrated a preference for vaginal birth across all groups. Those who had a vaginal birth were more satisfied with their birth experience.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence to inform practitioners about what women who have twin pregnancies like or dislike about birth and their desire for involvement in decision-making. Vaginal birth was preferred across all study groups and was associated with greater satisfaction with childbirth experience.

More primary care patients regret health decisions if they experienced decisional conflict in the consultation: a secondary analysis of a multicenter descriptive study

Background

We sought to estimate the extent of decision regret among primary care patients and identify risk factors associated with regret.

Methods

Secondary analysis of an observational descriptive study conducted in two Canadian provinces. Unique patient-physician dyads were recruited from 17 primary care clinics and data on patient, physician and consultation characteristics were collected before, during and immediately after consultations, as well as two weeks post-consultation, when patients completed the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). We examined the DRS score distribution and performed ordinal logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of regret.

Results

Among 258 unique patient-physicians dyads, mean ± standard deviation of decision regret scores was 11.7 ± 15.1 out of 100. Overall, 43 % of patients reported no regret, 45 % reported mild regret and 12 % reported moderate to strong regret. In multivariate analyses, higher decision regret was strongly associated with increased decisional conflict and less significantly associated with patient age and education, as well with male (vs. female) physicians and residents (vs. teachers).

Conclusion

After consulting family physicians, most primary care patients experience little decision regret, but some experience more regret if there is decisional conflict. Strategies for reducing decisional conflict in primary care, such as shared decision-making with decision aids, seem warranted.

Spirituality is associated with less treatment regret in men with localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Some patients with prostate cancer regret their treatment choice. Treatment regret is associated with lower physical and mental quality of life. We investigated whether, in men with prostate cancer, spirituality is associated with lower decisional regret 6 months after treatment and whether this is, in part, because men with stronger spiritual beliefs experience lower decisional conflict when they are deciding how to treat their cancer.

METHODS

One thousand ninety three patients with prostate cancer (84% white, 10% black, and 6% Hispanic; mean age = 63.18; SD = 7.75) completed measures of spiritual beliefs and decisional conflict after diagnosis and decisional regret 6 months after treatment. We used multivariable linear regression to test whether there is an association between spirituality and decisional regret and structural equation modeling to test whether decisional conflict mediated this relationship.

RESULTS

Stronger spiritual beliefs were associated with less decisional regret (b = -0.39, 95% CI = -0.53, -0.26, P < .001, partial η²  = 0.024, confidence interval = -0.55, 39%, P < .001, partial η²  = 0.03), after controlling for covariates. Decisional conflict partially (38%) mediated the effect of spirituality on regret (indirect effect: b = -0.16, 95% CI = -0.21, -0.12, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Spirituality may help men feel less conflicted about their cancer treatment decisions and ultimately experience less decisional regret. Psychosocial support post-diagnosis could include clarification of spiritual values and opportunities to reappraise the treatment decision-making challenge in light of these beliefs.

When do cancer patients regret their treatment decision? A path analysis of the influence of clinicians' communication styles and the match of decision-making styles on decision regret

OBJECTIVE

To test the influence of physician empathy (PE), shared decision making (SDM), and the match between patients' preferred and perceived decision-making styles on patients' decision regret.

METHODS

Patients with breast or colon cancer (n=71) completed questionnaires immediately following (T1) and three months after a consultation (T2). Path analysis was used to examine the relationships among patient demographics, patient reports of PE, SDM, the match between preferred and perceived decision-making styles, and patient decision regret at T2.

RESULTS

After controlling for clinician clusters, higher PE was directly associated with more SDM (β=0.43, p<0.01) and lower decision regret (β=-0.28, p<0.01). The match between patients' preferred and perceived roles was negatively associated with decision regret (β=-0.33, p<0.01). Patients who participated less than desired reported more decision regret at T2. There was no significant association between SDM and decision regret (β=0.03, p=0.74).

CONCLUSION

PE and the match between patients' preferred and perceived roles in medical decision making are essential for patient-centered cancer consultations and treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Ways to enhance PE and matching the consultation style to patients' expectations should be encouraged.

What Is a "Good" Treatment Decision? Decisional Control, Knowledge, Treatment Decision Making, and Quality of Life in Men with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

We explored whether active patient involvement in decision making and greater patient knowledge are associated with better treatment decision-making experiences and better quality of life (QOL) among men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Localized prostate cancer treatment decision making is an advantageous model for studying patient treatment decision-making dynamics because there are multiple treatment options and a lack of empirical evidence to recommend one over the other; consequently, it is recommended that patients be fully involved in making the decision.

METHODS

Men with newly diagnosed clinically localized prostate cancer (N = 1529) completed measures of decisional control, prostate cancer knowledge, and decision-making experiences (decisional conflict and decision-making satisfaction and difficulty) shortly after they made their treatment decision. Prostate cancer-specific QOL was assessed at 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

More active involvement in decision making and greater knowledge were associated with lower decisional conflict and higher decision-making satisfaction but greater decision-making difficulty. An interaction between decisional control and knowledge revealed that greater knowledge was only associated with greater difficulty for men actively involved in making the decision (67% of sample). Greater knowledge, but not decisional control, predicted better QOL 6 months after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although men who are actively involved in decision making and more knowledgeable may make more informed decisions, they could benefit from decisional support (e.g., decision-making aids, emotional support from providers, strategies for reducing emotional distress) to make the process easier. Men who were more knowledgeable about prostate cancer and treatment side effects at the time that they made their treatment decision may have appraised their QOL as higher because they had realistic expectations about side effects.

The Impact of Patient Participation in Health Decisions Within Medical Encounters

Background: Although there are compelling moral arguments for patient participation in medical decisions, the link to health outcomes has not been systematically explored. Objective: Assess the extent to which patient participation in decision making within medical encounters is associated with measured patient outcomes. Methods: We conducted a primary search in PubMed—excluding non-English and animal studies—for articles on decision making in the context of the physician–patient relationship published through the end of February 2015, using the MeSH headings (Physician-Patient Relations [MeSH] OR Patient Participation [MeSH]) and the terms (decision OR decisions OR option OR options OR choice OR choices OR alternative OR alternatives) in the title or abstract. We also conducted a secondary search of references in all articles that met the inclusion criteria. Results: A thorough search process yielded 116 articles for final analysis. There was wide variation in study design, as well as measurement of patient participation and outcomes, among the studies. Eleven of the 116 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Interventions increased patient involvement in 10 (91%) of the 11 RCTs. At least one positive outcome was detected in 5 (50%) of the 10 RCTs reporting increased participation; the ratio of positive results among all outcome variables measured in these studies was much smaller. Although proportions differed, similar patterns were found across the 105 nonrandomized studies. Conclusions: Very few RCTs in the field have measures of participation in decision making and at least one health outcome. Moreover, extant studies exhibit little consistency in measurement of these variables, and results are mixed. There is a great need for well-designed, reproducible research on clinically relevant outcomes of patient participation in medical decisions.

Review of measurement instruments in research ethics in the biomedical sciences, 2008−2012

There is an urgent need in biomedical science to understand whether regulations are being met, prerequisite to goals of subject protection and integrity in research practice. This article presents an update of a 2006 summary of measurement instruments in research ethics with psychometric information in the years 2008−2012. A review of 25 instruments identified seven used in the time period 2008−2012 and which had accumulated at least one study of its psychometric qualities beyond its developmental phase. Many of these instruments had been accumulating psychometric information over more than a decade. Two additional but still underdeveloped instruments addressing important bioethical issues − coercion and therapeutic misconception − are included because they address important issues in research ethics. Bioethicists use a wide range of methods for knowledge development and verification; each method should meet stringent standards of quality. Measurement instruments that meet these standards have the potential to greatly ease the work of institutional review boards and other regulatory bodies as well as to enhance empirical work on human research ethics.

Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motives behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials

It is necessary to carry out randomised clinical cancer trials (RCTs) in order to evaluate new, potentially useful treatments for future cancer patients. Participation in clinical trials plays an important role in determining whether a new treatment is the best therapy or not. Therefore, it is important to understand on what basis patients decide to participate in clinical trials and to investigate the implications of this understanding for optimising the information process related to study participation. The aims of this study were to (1) describe motives associated with participation in RCTs, (2) assess if patients comprehend the information related to trial enrolment, and (3) describe patient experiences of trial participation. Questionnaires were sent to 96 cancer patients participating in one of nine ongoing clinical phase 3 trials at the Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden. Eighty-eight patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 92%); 95% of these were patients in adjuvant therapy and 5% participated in clinical trials on palliative care. Two main reasons for participation were identified: personal hope for a cure and altruism. Patients show adequate understanding of the information provided to them in the consent process and participation entails high patient satisfaction.