Prostate cancer survivors with a passive role preference in treatment decision-making are less satisfied with information received: Results from the PROFILES registry

Bridging the care gap: patients' needs and experiences regarding shared decision-making in radiotherapy

Background and purpose

Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative process in which patients and physicians jointly determine further treatment, has been associated with numerous positive effects. However, its implementation into routine clinical practice faces challenges. In radiotherapy (RT) it may have additional challenges, since patients are referred from another oncologist, often "to undergo RT". The aim of this study is to understand patients' preferences and experiences regarding SDM at an academic RT clinic, and to identify targets for SDM implementation in RT.

Materials and methods

We adapted an earlier survey sent out by the Dutch Cancer Patient Organizations Federation to fit the RT setting. The survey was distributed via letters and social media to (former) patients who had their intake between 2020 and 2022.

Results

1799 participants completed the survey, of whom 88,3% mentioned to always or often prefer SDM. 23,1% of participants reported experiencing a choice, and 50% of these participants experienced multiple options. The most commons reason for preferring SDM was bodily autonomy (n = 1114) and against SDM was wanting to decide themselves instead (n = 11). Participants with a higher educational attainment were more likely to prefer and experience SDM. Older participants were more likely to experience multiple options.

Conclusion

Our findings reaffirm that most cancer patients prefer SDM, and extend these findings to RT. However, we found a large gap between patients' desire for SDM, and the SDM experienced in our RT institute. SDM implementation strategies are needed and should focus on overcoming RT-specific and patient-reported barriers and opportunities.

T1 colorectal cancer patients' perspective on information provision and therapeutic decision-making after local resection

BACKGROUND

Decision-making after local resection of T1 colorectal cancer (T1CRC) is often complex and calls for optimal information provision as well as active patient involvement.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the perceptions of patients with T1CRC on information provision and therapeutic decision-making.

METHODS

This multicenter cross-sectional study included patients who underwent endoscopic or local surgical resection as initial treatment. Information provision was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire. In patients with high-risk T1CRC, we evaluated decisional involvement and satisfaction regarding the choice as to whether to undergo additional treatment after local resection, and the level of decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients with T1CRC were included (72% response rate; 79/98 endoscopic and 19/98 local surgical resection; 45/98 high-risk T1CRC). Median time since local resection was 28 months (IQR 18); none had developed recurrence. Unmet information needs were reported by 29 patients (30%; 18 low-risk, 11 high-risk), mostly on post-treatment related topics (follow-up visits, recovery time, recurrence prevention). After local resection, 24 of the 45 high-risk patients (53%) underwent additional treatment, while others were subjected to surveillance. Higher-educated patients were more often actively involved in decision-making (93% vs. 43%, p = 0.002) and more frequently underwent additional treatment (79% vs. 40%, p = 0.02). Decisional conflict (p = 0.19) and satisfaction (p = 0.78) were comparable between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Greater attention should be given to the post-treatment course during consultations following local T1CRC resection. The differences in decisional involvement and selected management strategies between higher- and lower-educated high-risk patients warrant further investigation.

Influential Factors Impacting Treatment Decision-making and Decision Regret in Patients with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as "a decision driver", "associated", "influential", or "significant" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key.

CONCLUSIONS

The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor's recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

Knowledge and practices regarding prostate cancer screening in Spanish men: The importance of personal and clinical characteristics (PROSHADE study)

INTRODUCTION

Patients' decisions on prostate cancer (PCa) opportunistic screening may vary. This study aimed to assess how demographic and health-related characteristics may influence knowledge and decisions regarding PCa screening.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among men aged over 40, randomly sampled from the Spanish population, 2022. The survey underwent development and content validation using a modified Delphi method and was administered via telephone. Binomial logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between respondents' characteristics and participants' knowledge and practices concerning PCa and the PSA test.

RESULTS

Out of 1,334 men, 1,067 (80%) respondents were interviewed with a mean age of 58.6 years (sd 11.9). Most had secondary or university studies (787, 73.8%) and 61 (5.7%) self-reported their health status as bad or very bad. Most of the respondents (1,018, 95.4%) had knowledge regarding PCa with nearly 70% expressed significant concern about its potential development (720, 70.8%), particularly among those under 64 years (p = 0.001). Out of 847 respondents, 573 (67.7%) reported that they have knowledge regarding the PSA test: 374 (65.4%) reported receiving information from a clinicians, 324 (86.6%) information about the benefits of the test and 189 (49,5%) about its risks, with differences based on educational background. In a multivariable analysis (adjusted for age, educational level and previous prostate problems), respondents with higher levels of education were more likely to have higher knowledge regarding the PSA test (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.24-2.50, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although most of the patients reported to have knowledge regarding PCa, half of the interviewed men reported knowledge about PSA test. Differences in knowledge prostate cancer screening and undesirable consequences highlight the need to develop and provide tailored information for patients.

Do all prostate cancer patients want, and experience shared decision making prior to curative treatment?

OBJECTIVE

In comparable men with non-metastatic prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RAD) and active surveillance (AS) are treatment options with similar survival rates, but different side-effects. Healthcare professionals consider pretreatment shared decision making (SDM) to be an essential part of medical care, though the patients' view about SDM is less known. In this article, we explore prostate cancer (PCa) patients' SDM wish (SDMwish), and experiences (SDMexp).  Material and methods: This is a registry-based survey performed by the Cancer Registry of Norway (2017-2019). One year after diagnosis, 5,063 curatively treated PCa patients responded to questions about their pre-treatment wish and experience regarding SDM. Multivariable analyses identified factors associated with SDM. Statistical significance level: p < 0.05.  Results: Overall, 78% of the patients wished to be involved in SDM and 83% of these had experienced SDM. SDMwish and SDMexp was significantly associated with decreasing age, increasing education, and living with a partner. Compared with the RP group, the probability of SDMwish and SDMexp was reduced by about 40% in the RAD and the AS groups.  Conclusion: Three of four curatively treated PCa wanted to participate in SDM, and this wish was met in four of five men. Younger PCa patients with higher education in a relationship, and opting for RP, wanted an active role in SDM, and experienced being involved. Effective SDM requires the responsible physicians' attention to the individual patients' characteristics and needs.

Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium

BACKGROUND

Elicitation of patients' preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients' preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients' treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population.

OBJECTIVE

This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy.

RESULTS

A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one's decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

Actual situation of decision-making support from medical staff when cancer patients make treatment choices

Background: We investigated factors involved in decision-making support provided by physicians, nurses, pharmacists and medical and psychiatric social workers involved in cancer care. Materials & methods: A questionnaire survey on decision-making support was conducted. The level of clinician support was classified as 'supporting patients' 'decision-making process regarding cancer treatment', 'no support for patients' 'decision-making process regarding cancer treatment' or 'team-based support for patients' 'decision-making process regarding cancer treatment'. Results: Physicians estimated that 83.7% of patients made a cancer treatment decision within 1 week, but 45.4% of patients had difficulty making a decision. Conclusion: Medical personnel should support patients who have difficulty making decisions, establish a screening method to identify those needing support and develop a system providing decision-making support through interprofessional work.

Decision Aids in the ICU: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesise the effectiveness and acceptability of decision aids for critically ill patients and family members in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A systematic search of four electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken to identify relevant studies on the application of decision aids in the ICU, without publication date restriction, through March 2023. The methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley was used to guide the scoping review.

RESULTS

Fourteen papers were ultimately included in this review. However, only nine decision aids were available, and it is noteworthy that many of these studies focused on the iterative development and testing of individual decision aids. Among the included studies, 92% (n=13) were developed in North America, with a primary focus on goals of care and life-sustaining treatments. The summary of the effect of decision aid application revealed that the most common indicators were the level of knowledge and code status, and some promising signals disappeared in randomised trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The complexity of treatment decisions in the ICU exceeds the current capabilities of existing decision aids. There is a clear gap in decision aids that are tailored to different cultural contexts, highlighting the need to expand the scope of their application. In addition, rigorous quality control is very important for randomised controlled trial, and indicators for assessing the effectiveness of decision aids need to be further clarified.

Older patients' perceptions of the quality of acute cancer care: An integrative review-A mixed-method approach

AIM

This integrative review aimed to describe the perceptions of the quality of care of older patients (aged 65 and above) living with cancer in acute-care settings.

METHODS

We identified relevant research suitable for inclusion criteria through systematic searches of the PubMed®, EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier®, Scopus® and Web of Science® databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines were used to conduct the research and report the results. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the modified Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. The data analysis revealed that care quality could be described through three distinct themes: individuality, a sense of security and respectful encounters.

CONCLUSION

The perceptions of older people living with cancer regarding the quality of acute care have not been extensively covered in the literature. Health- and age-related challenges, patients' overall life situation, clear, realistic information about care and the future and respect during encounters should be given attention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patient-centred and tailored care, considering the heterogeneity of the population and support for independence, is needed.

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.

Confiabilidade do EORTC QLQ-INFO25 para Avaliar a Necessidade de Informação de Pacientes Oncológicos

Introdução: A maioria dos pacientes não possui um grau satisfatório de compreensão acerca do câncer. Para que o processo de comunicação de informações seja verdadeiramente efetivo, e necessário identificar anteriormente o nível de conhecimento do paciente. Objetivo: Verificar a estabilidade teste-reteste do instrumento EORTC QLQ-INFO25 em sua versão em português do Brasil, para avaliação da necessidade de informação do paciente oncológico. Método: O instrumento foi aplicado em 253 pacientes hospitalizados nas enfermarias clinicas e cirúrgicas de um hospital de alta complexidade no tratamento do câncer situado no município do Rio de Janeiro, por meio de um questionário com entrevista individual. Para testar a adequação do processo de aferição, 85 pacientes aderiram ao reteste, com intervalo de sete a 15 dias. Os dados foram inseridos em um banco de dados por dupla digitação independente no programa Microsoft Excel. A análise foi realizada por meio da estatística Kappa simples e ponderada. Resultados: As respostas mostraram-se estáveis, e as estimativas de confiabilidade teste-reteste variaram de boas a excelentes (0,66 a 0,99). O instrumento também demonstrou boa estabilidade quando aplicado em outras populações e em pacientes com diferentes tipos de câncer. Conclusão: O instrumento EORTEC QLQ-INFO25 pode contribuir para a mensuração da satisfação do paciente em relação a sua necessidade de informação, uma vez que os resultados sugerem alta estabilidade das informações, tornando viável a sua aplicabilidade na população brasileira.

Influencing factors of lung cancer patients' participation in shared decision-making: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate and analyze the level of actual participation and perceived importance of shared decision-making on treatment and care of lung cancer patients, to compare their differences and to explore their influencing factors.

METHODS

A total of 290 lung cancer patients were collected from oncology and thoracic surgery departments of a comprehensive medical center in Qingdao from October 2018 to December 2019. Participants completed a cross-sectional questionnaire to assess their actual participation and perceived importance in shared decision-making on treatment and care. Descriptive analysis and non-parametric tests were carried out to assess the status quo of patients' shared decision-making on treatment and care. Binary logistic regression analysis with a stepwise back-wards was applied to predict factors that affected patients' participation in shared decision-making.

RESULTS

The results showed that patients with lung cancer had a low degree of participation in shared decision-making. There were significant differences between actual participation and perceived importance of shared decision-making on treatment and care. Education level, age, gender, income, marital status, personality, the course of the disease (> 6 months), and the pathological TNM staging (III) affected patient's level of participation in shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Actual participation in shared decision-making on the treatment and care of lung cancer patients was low and considered unimportant. We could train oncology nurses to use patient decision aids to help patients and families participate in shared decision-making on patients' value, preferences and needs.

The Treatment Decision-making Preferences of Patients with Prostate Cancer Should Be Recorded in Research and Clinical Routine: a Pooled Analysis of Four Survey Studies with 7169 Patients

Different patients want to take different roles in the treatment decision-making process; these roles can be classified as passive, collaborative, and active. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between decision-making preferences among patients with prostate cancer and personal, disease-related, and structural factors. In four survey studies, we asked 7169 prostate cancer patients about their decision-making preferences using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and collected clinical, psychological, and quality-of-life measures. Most patients (62.2%) preferred collaborative decision-making, while 2322 (32.4%) preferred an active role, and only 391 (5.5%) preferred a passive role. Age (p < 0.001), data collection mode (p < 0.001), peer-to-peer support (p = 0.018), treatment status (p < 0.001), performed or planned radical prostatectomy (p < 0.001), metastatic disease (p = 0.001), and quality of life (p < 0.001) showed significant associations with patients' preferred decision-making roles. Oncologic risk group, anxiety, and depression were not significant in the model. In particular, younger prostate cancer patients with higher quality of life completing an online survey want to play a more active role in treatment decision-making. Before treatment has started, patients tend to prefer collaborative decision-making. Few prostate cancer patients in Germany prefer a passive role. These patients are mostly older patients, patients with a metastatic disease, and patients who have opted for prostatectomy. Whether this finding reflects a generational effect or a tendency by age group and disease phase should be investigated. Further research is also needed to describe the causalities of these relationships. The CPS offers valuable information for personal counselling and should be applied in clinical routine. In a large group of patients with prostate cancer, we found that there is a strong desire for joint decision-making with the physician before the actual treatment. Especially younger men, men with active online behaviour, and men with a high quality of life want to be actively involved in therapy decision-making processes.

Filling the gaps of patient information needs and information perception in chronic myeloid leukemia with the patient-physician co-produced web-based platform CMyLife

BACKGROUND

For patients with chronic myeloid leukemia, a web-based platform CMyLife was developed. Its aim is to enhance patient empowerment, by adequate information provision, among others. Before evaluating its effect, information provision and needs in current care were assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patients' evaluation of received information and information needs before CMyLife utilization and whether this information source is used correspondingly. Additionally, we explored predicting patient factors in information perception.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

CMyLife platform was developed with active patient participation.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 203 CML patients before launch of the CMyLife platform, using validated questionnaires on information provision and predictive factors. We focused on website utilization during the first 3 years, using Google Analytics. Regression analyses were performed to determine influence of patient factors on information perception.

RESULTS

Global perceived information provision was scored 42.8 (0-100). Information on other services such as rehabilitation and psychological support, and effects of treatment on sexuality showed room for improvement. One out of 3 knew where to find useful health information online. But more information was desired by 36% of them. Age ≥65 years, time since diagnosis and low education were positively associated with this need. Pages on medication and side effects were visited the most.

DISCUSSION

To fill the gap in perceived provision and needs, information should be adjusted more to the individual in content, manner and timing. Age, time since diagnosis, and educational level are of influence in perceived information, and specific needs within these groups should be further explored.

PRACTICAL VALUE

CMyLife provides reliable and up-to-date information for low eHealth literacy skilled patients concerning multiple topics indicated by patients.

Factors Affecting Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Process and Decision Regret for Men with a New Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer

For men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer the decisions about treatment options are complex and difficult. The aim of this study was to investigate any association between the extent to which men wanted to be involved in the decision making process, their satisfaction with that process, and their levels of decision regret after treatment. The study population consisted of men diagnosed with prostate cancer at a regional center in Australia. Men (n = 324) were invited to complete a mail out survey which included demographic questions, the treatment chosen, and three validated tools: The Control Preference Scale to measure the degree of control assumed when making decisions about medical interventions; the Treatment Decision-Making Satisfaction Scale (TDM- SAT) to assess satisfaction with the treatment decision making process; and the Decision Regret Scale to assess the level of regret after treatment. The majority of the 151 respondents (47% response rate) expressed an active decision control preference. There was no correlation between age and the treatment chosen or the degree of control men exerted over the decision-making process. Men who preferred a passive role were less satisfied with the decision-making process than were those who took an active or collaborative approach. A strong inverse correlation was demonstrated between regret experienced and satisfaction with the decision-making process. In conclusion, for men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer, taking an active role in the treatment decision making process led to greater satisfaction with that process, which in turn reduced their chances of experiencing regret following treatment.

Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

BACKGROUND

Many suggest that shared decision-making (SDM) is the most effective approach to clinical counseling. It is unclear if this applies to surgical decision-making-especially regarding urgent, highly-morbid operations. In this scoping review, we identify articles that address patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery.

METHODS

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop our protocol. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through 11.2017. Title/abstract review identified peer-reviewed, empirical articles that addressed patient/surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery. Identified articles underwent full review by two independent investigators. We addressed the following questions: (1) What is known from existing empirical evidence about patients' and/or surgeons' surgical decision-making preferences? (2) Why might patients and/or surgeons prefer SDM? (3) Does acuity of intervention impact surgical decision-making preferences? Outcome measures included study methods, surgical specialty, diagnosis, study location/setting, type/number of subjects, acuity of intervention, surgeon/patient decision-making preferences, and factors associated with favoring SDM. Data was analyzed in Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

20,359 articles were identified with 4988 duplicates, yielding 15,371 articles for title/abstract review. 74 articles were included in final analysis. 68% of articles discussed oncologic decision-making. 46% of these focused on breast cancer. 92% of articles included patients, 22% included surgeons. 75% of articles found surgeons favored SDM, 25% demonstrated surgeons favored surgeon guidance. 54% of articles demonstrated patients favored SDM, 35% showed patients favored surgeon guidance, 11% showed patients preferred independent decision-making. The most common factors for patients favoring SDM included female gender, higher education, and younger age. For surgeons, the most common factors for favoring SDM included limited evidence for a given treatment plan, multiple treatment options, and impact on patient lifestyle. No articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been limited evaluation of patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgical decision-making. Generally, patients and surgeons expressed preference toward SDM. None of the articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting, so assessment of the impact of acuity on decision-making preferences is limited. Extension of research to complex, emergent clinical settings is needed.

Ethnographic investigation of patient-provider communication among African American men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

In the USA, African American men bear a disproportionate burden of prostate cancer (PCa) compared with all other groups, having a higher incidence and mortality, poorer quality of life and higher dissatisfaction with care. They are also less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (eg, undertreatment of aggressive disease). Inadequate patient-provider communication contributes to suboptimal care, which can be exacerbated by patients' limited health literacy, providers' lack of communication skills and time constraints in low-resource, safety net settings. This study is designed to examine the communication experiences of African American patients with PCa as they undertake treatment decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using an ethnographic approach, we will follow 25 African American men newly diagnosed with PCa at two public hospitals, from diagnosis through treatment decision. Data sources include: (1) audio-recorded clinic observations during urology, radiation oncology, medical oncology and primary care visits, (2) field notes from clinic observations, (3) patient surveys after clinic visits, (4) two in-depth patient interviews, (5) a provider survey, and (6) in-depth interviews with providers. We will explore patients' understanding of their diagnoses and treatment options, sources of support in decision-making, patient-provider communication and treatment decision-making processes. Audio-recorded observations and interviews will be transcribed verbatim. An iterative process of coding and team discussions will be used to thematically analyse patients' experiences and providers' perspectives, and to refine codes and identify key themes. Descriptive statistics will summarise survey data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine in-depth patient-provider communication among African American patients with PCa. For a population as marginalised as African American men, an ethnographic approach allows for explication of complex sociocultural and contextual influences on healthcare processes and outcomes. Study findings will inform the development of interventions and initiatives that promote patient-centred communication, shared decision-making and guideline-concordant care. This study was approved by the University of California San Francisco and the Alameda Health System Institutional Review Boards.

Health-related quality Of Life n patients with advanced Soft TIssue sarcomas treated with Chemotherapy (The HOLISTIC study): protocol for an international observational cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Treatment intent is usually palliative, aiming to improve symptoms, stabilise or reduce tumour burden and extend life. Clinical trials have traditionally used radiological response, time to progression and survival as measures of treatment efficacy. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is at least equally important or more important than survival for many patients with advanced cancer. Systematically collecting HRQoL data during chemotherapy can provide greater insight into treatment efficacy from the patient perspective.The primary aims of this study are to evaluate HRQoL in patients with advanced STS treated with chemotherapy over time, explore the decision-making process and patient reflection post-treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an observational, international cohort study for 132 patients aged ≥18 years with advanced STS treated at eight centres (three in the UK, five in the Netherlands). Patients will be recruited prior to starting first-line or third-line chemotherapy and invited to complete questionnaires using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship registry (PROFILES); an established international registry for collection of cancer patient-reported outcomes. Online (or paper) questionnaires will be completed at baseline, each cycle of chemotherapy and 2-3 monthly during follow-up. The questionnaire package includes the Decisional Conflict Scale, Control Preferences Scale, Quality-Quantity Questionnaire, treatment expectations, European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30), EORTC financial toxicity items, Work Ability Index, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) items and Decisional Regret Scale. Clinical data will be extracted from patient records and linked with questionnaire responses. The primary outcome measure is the change in global HRQoL from baseline to after cycle 4 of first-line chemotherapy (based on published data showing that patients with advanced STS complete a median number of four cycles of first-line chemotherapy).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Heath Research Authority and Research Ethics Committee (REC 17/NI/0197). Results from the Health-related quality Of Life In patients with advanced Soft TIssue sarcomas treated with Chemotherapy (HOLISTIC) study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at local, national and international conferences. We will also present our findings at any appropriate patient meetings and involve patients in study-related publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03621332.

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.

Mind the gap: Physicians' assessment of patients' importance weights in localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The management of localized prostate cancer is challenging because of the many therapeutic options available, none of which is generally acknowledged as superior to the others in every respect. The selection of the most appropriate treatment should therefore reflect patients' preferences.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the following study was to pilot a new approach for investigating whether urologists who had previously provided patients with therapeutic advice actually knew their patients' importance weights concerning the relevant aspects of the treatments at issue.

METHOD

Participants were patients recently diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (n = 20), urologists (n = 10), and non-medical professionals (architects, n = 10). These last served as a control group for the urologists and were matched to them for age and gender. Patients' importance weights were elicited by two standard methods (Direct Rating and Value Hierarchy). Each urologist was asked to estimate (with Direct Rating) his/her patient's importance weights. The same task was performed by a corresponding architect, who never met the patient and knew only the patient's age. Univariate and bivariate statistical analyses were performed to investigate the association between importance weights as elicited from patients and as estimated by urologists and architects, as well as to assess whether such agreement was attribute-dependent.

RESULTS

Participants found both elicitation methods easy to use. The correlation between patients' actual importance weights and urologists' estimates was poor and comparable to that obtained between patients and architects. This result did not depend on the attribute considered, with the sole exception of the attribute "Effectiveness in curing the cancer", which was evaluated as the most important attribute by the majority of participants.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate the feasibility of the employed methodology and highlight the need to support preference-sensitive decisions in clinical practice by facilitating the elicitation of patients' importance weights, as well as their communication to physicians.