A Systematic Review of Decision Aids in Hematologic Malignancies: What Are Currently Available and What Are We Missing?

Integrating Palliative Care and Hematologic Malignancies: Bridging the Gaps for Our Patients and Their Caregivers

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) struggle with immense physical and psychological symptom burden, which negatively affect their quality of life (QOL) throughout the continuum of illness. These patients are often faced with substantial prognostic uncertainty as they navigate their illness course, which further complicates their medical decision making, especially at the end of life (EOL). Consequently, patients with HM often endure intensive medical care at the EOL, including frequent hospitalization and intensive care unit admissions, and they often die in the hospital. Our EOL health care delivery models are not well suited to meet the unique needs of patients with HMs. Although studies have established the role of specialty palliative care for improving QOL and EOL outcomes in patients with solid tumors, numerous disease-, clinician-, and system-based barriers prevail, limiting the integration of palliative care for patients with HMs. Nonetheless, multiple studies have emerged over the past decade identifying the role of palliative care integration in patients with various HMs, resulting in improvements in patient-reported QOL, symptom burden, and psychological distress, as well as EOL care. Importantly, these studies have also identified active components of specialty palliative care interventions, including strategies to promote adaptive coping especially in the face of prognostic uncertainty. Future work can leverage the knowledge gained from specialty palliative care integration to develop and test primary palliative care interventions by training clinicians caring for patients with HMs to incorporate these strategies into their clinical practice.

Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Its Implementation in Cervical Cancer Management in the Philippines: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence. Although much studied, recognized to be ethically imperative, and recommended in international health policies, it remains poorly implemented. In the Philippines, there are limited studies on patient decision making preferences and SDM. Practical guidance on the implementation of SDM or use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) is often not detailed in existing national clinical practice guidelines in oncology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of Philippine literature on SDM in oncology and an iterative review of international literature on the philosophy and methods of SDM, the utility and effectiveness of PtDAs, and the facilitators and barriers to implementation or usage. We contextualized our review to the cervical cancer management and health service delivery in the Philippines.

RESULTS

Local literature is limited to five scientific publications and two registered studies. International literature encompasses patient decisional preferences, the role of PtDAs and the standards for their development and evaluation, their effectiveness, and barriers and facilitators to their use in cancer-related decision making. We discussed the implications on the management of cervical cancer in the Philippines, challenges in health service delivery and standards, and SDM research.

CONCLUSION

Local SDM research is limited. Our preliminary experience in a multicenter clinical trial in Manila on PtDA use in the framework of SDM in cervical cancer suggest good patient and clinician acceptability. Challenges to implementation such as unfavorable financial situations, urgency of clinical decisions, low patient or caregiver educational attainment, and poor integration of multidisciplinary and SDM in organizational workflows will be important when implementing SDM in different settings.

Multiple Myeloma: Validation of the Values and Preferences Elicitation Questionnaire- Cure and Survival Preference Scale (VPEQ-CSPS)

BACKGROUND

With the emergence of many novel therapies, the treatment decisions for multiple myeloma (MM) are increasingly guided by concerns of quality of life, achievement of cancer-free remission, living a longer overall survival, and a relentless search for a cure; however, the impact of various decision-making factors on patients' actual therapy choices and the patients' desire for cure and survival is mainly unknown. The lack of a valid and reliable measure for uncovering patients' preferences for cure and survival makes it more challenging to put this factor into the actual treatment decision equation.

PURPOSE

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Values and Preferences Elicitation Questionnaire-Cure and Survival Preference Scale (VPEQ-CSPS) instrument.

METHODS

The VPEQ-CSPS instrument was deployed using an anonymous Qualtrics online survey to patients diagnosed with MM within the network of International Myeloma Foundation online patient support groups across the United States. One hundred seventy-four (N = 174) valid responses were obtained and used to examine the validity and reliability of the VPEQ-CSPS.

RESULTS

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of 0.72 indicating excellent sample adequacy. A statistically significant Bartlett's test of sphericity (P < .001) indicated significant correlations among the variables of the dataset to conduct the EFA. The internal consistency coefficients indicated adequate reliability of the instrument with Cronbach's alpha value at 0.80. The EFA and parallel analysis revealed the 5-item VPEQ-CSPS as a valid and reliable unidimensional scale that can be used by oncology clinicians to elicit their patient's preferences for cure and survival. This new instrument has the potential to contribute to the achievement of shared decision-making for myeloma treatment decisions.

Patient Decision Aid for Chemotherapy or Exclusion in Cisplatin-Intolerant Patients With Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Development, Alpha Testing, and Peer Validation

PURPOSE

In locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), adding cisplatin to radiotherapy (RT) improves survival but increases toxicity. Among patients with cisplatin contraindications, RT compliance may be compromised by toxicity because of cisplatin or a substitute. In shared decision making, a patient decision aid (PtDA) may decrease decisional conflict and attitudinal barriers, thereby improving treatment compliance.

METHODS

Following International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) guidelines, a steering committee of two radiation oncologists, a gynecologic oncologist, an oncology nurse, a clinical psychologist, a cancer survivor, and a caregiver developed the chemotherapy or exclusion in cisplatin-intolerant patients with LACC (CECIL) prototype, a PtDA for cisplatin-intolerant patients with LACC deciding about adding chemotherapy to RT. The prototype was alpha-tested using the e-Delphi method. The patient decision aid research group Ottawa Acceptability Questionnaire was used to evaluate comprehensibility, length, amount of information, neutrality, and overall suitability for decision making. The prototype was then independently evaluated by local internal, local external, and international reviewers using the IPDAS checklist version 4, which encompasses information, probabilities, values, guidance, development, evidence, disclosure, plain language, and evaluation.

RESULTS

Alpha testing showed high practitioner acceptability (all items with mean and median scores ≥4; overall mean score 4.70 of 5.00) and good patient acceptability (all items rated good to excellent). Content validation showed that the PtDA satisfied all IPDAS six qualifying and six certification criteria, with high overall mean score (3.63 of 4.00) for all 17 applicable quality criteria.

CONCLUSION

The CECIL prototype shows good practitioner and patient acceptability, and content validity on peer review. Clinical testing to determine its effectiveness in reducing decisional conflict is ongoing.