Cure Me Even If It Kills Me: Preferences for Invasive Cancer Treatment

Research ethics and public trust in vaccines: the case of COVID-19 challenge trials

Despite their clearly demonstrated safety and effectiveness, approved vaccines against COVID-19 are commonly mistrusted. Nations should find and implement effective ways to boost vaccine confidence. But the implications for ethical vaccine development are less straightforward than some have assumed. Opponents of COVID-19 vaccine challenge trials, in particular, made speculative or empirically implausible warnings on this matter, some of which, if applied consistently, would have ruled out most COVID-19 vaccine trials and many non-pharmaceutical responses.

Future pandemics and the urge to 'do something'

Research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP) makes pathogens substantially more lethal, communicable, immunosuppressive or otherwise capable of triggering a pandemic. We briefly relay an existing argument that the benefits of ePPP research do not outweigh its risks and then consider why proponents of these arguments continue to confidently endorse them. We argue that these endorsements may well be the product of common cognitive biases-in which case they would provide no challenge to the argument against ePPP research. If the case against ePPP research is strong, the views of professional experts do little to move the needle in favour of ePPP research.

The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer should be managed with active surveillance (AS). Global uptake of AS remains disappointingly slow and heterogeneous. Removal of cancer labels has been proposed to reduce GG1 overtreatment. We sought to determine the impact of GG1 disease terminology on individual's perceptions and decision making.

METHODS

Discrete choice experiments were conducted on 3 cohorts: healthy men, canonical partners (partners), and patients with GG1 (patients). Participants reported preferences in a series of vignettes with 2 scenarios each, permuting key opinion leader-endorsed descriptors: biopsy (adenocarcinoma, acinar neoplasm, prostatic acinar neoplasm of low malignant potential [PAN-LMP], prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential), disease (cancer, neoplasm, tumor, growth), management decision (treatment, AS), and recurrence risk (6%, 3%, 1%, <1%). Influence on scenario selection were estimated by conditional logit models and marginal rates of substitution. Two additional validation vignettes with scenarios portraying identical descriptors except the management options were embedded into the discrete choice experiments.

RESULTS

Across cohorts (194 healthy men, 159 partners, and 159 patients), noncancer labels PAN-LMP or prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential and neoplasm, tumor, or growth were favored over adenocarcinoma and cancer (P < .01), respectively. Switching adenocarcinoma and cancer labels to PAN-LMP and growth, respectively, increased AS choice by up to 17%: healthy men (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 20%, from 76% to 91%, P < .001), partners (17%, 95% CI = 12% to 24%, from 65% to 82%, P < .001), and patients (7%, 95% CI = 4% to 12%, from 75% to 82%, P = .063). The main limitation is the theoretical nature of questions perhaps leading to less realistic choices.

CONCLUSIONS

"Cancer" labels negatively affect perceptions and decision making regarding GG1. Relabeling (ie, avoiding word "cancer") increases proclivity for AS and would likely improve public health.

End-of-Life Preferences: A Randomized Trial of Framing Comfort Care as Refusal of Treatment in the Context of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Rates of advance directive (AD) completion in the United Kingdom are lower than in the United States and other western European countries, which is especially concerning in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. UK residents typically complete an advance decision to refuse care (ADRT), whereas US versions of ADs present a more neutral choice between comfort-oriented or life-prolonging care. The purpose of this study is to test whether this framing affects decision making for end-of-life care and if this is affected by exposure to information about the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

In an online experiment, 801 UK-based respondents were randomly allocated to document their preferences for end-of-life care in a 2 (US AD or UK ADRT) by 2 (presence or absence of COVID-19 prime) between-subjects factorial design.

RESULTS

Most (74.8%) of participants across all conditions chose comfort-oriented care. However, framing comfort care as a refusal of treatment made respondents significantly less likely to choose it (65.4% v. 84.1%, P < 0.001). This effect was exacerbated by priming participants to think about COVID-19: those completing an ADRT were significantly more likely to choose life-prolonging care when exposed to the COVID-19 prime (39.8% v. 29.6%, P = 0.032). Subgroup analyses revealed these effects differed by age, with older participants' choices influenced more by COVID-19 while younger participants were more affected by the AD framing.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK ADRT significantly reduced the proportion of participants choosing comfort-oriented care, an effect that was heightened in the presence of information about COVID-19. This suggests the current way end-of-life care wishes are documented in the United Kingdom could affect people's choices in a way that does not align with their preferences, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

HIGHLIGHTS

Participants completing an AD framed as an advance decision to refuse treatment were significantly less likely to choose comfort-oriented care than participants completing an AD with a neutral choice between comfort-oriented and life-prolonging care.Exposure to a COVID-19 prime had an interactive effect on documented preferences in the refusal of treatment condition, with these participants even less likely to choose comfort-oriented care.Policy makers and organizations that design templates for advance care planning, particularly in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, should be aware how the framing of these forms can influence decisions.

Women's views about current and future management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS): A mixed-methods study

Management of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is controversial, with clinical trials currently assessing the safety of active monitoring amidst concern about overtreatment. Little is known about general community views regarding DCIS and its management. We aimed to explore women's understanding and views about low-risk DCIS and current and potential future management options. This mixed-method study involved qualitative focus groups and brief quantitative questionnaires. Participants were screening-aged (50-74 years) women, with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and no personal history of breast cancer/DCIS, recruited from across metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Sessions incorporated an informative presentation interspersed with group discussions which were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Fifty-six women took part in six age-stratified focus groups. Prior awareness of DCIS was limited, however women developed reasonable understanding of DCIS and the relevant issues. Overall, women expressed substantial support for active monitoring being offered as a management approach for low-risk DCIS, and many were interested in participating in a hypothetical clinical trial. Although some women expressed concern that current management may sometimes represent overtreatment, there were mixed views about personally accepting monitoring. Women noted a number of important questions and considerations that would factor into their decision making. Our findings about women's perceptions of active monitoring for DCIS are timely while results of ongoing clinical trials of monitoring are awaited, and may inform clinicians and investigators designing future, similar trials. Exploration of offering well-informed patients the choice of non-surgical management of low-risk DCIS, even outside a clinical trial setting, may be warranted.

Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions

BACKGROUND

Past studies have shown a commission bias for cancer treatment, a tendency to choose active treatment even when watchful waiting is less risky. This bias suggests motivations for action beyond mortality statistics, but recent evidence suggests that individuals differ in their emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP), the tendency to calibrate emotional reactions to probability. The current study aims to examine the role of ESP in the commission bias, specifically whether those higher in ESP are more likely to choose watchful waiting when risk probabilities align with that choice.

METHODS

Participants (N = 1,055) read a scenario describing a hypothetical cancer diagnosis and chose between surgery and watchful waiting, with random assignment between versions where the mortality rate was either lower for surgery or for watchful waiting. We modeled choice using the Possibility Probability Questionnaire (PPQ), a measure of ESP, and several other individual differences in a logistic regression.

RESULTS

We observed a commission bias as in past studies with most participants choosing surgery both when surgery was optimal (71%) and when watchful waiting was optimal (58%). An ESP × Condition interaction indicated that the predictive role of ESP depended on condition. Those higher in ESP were more likely to choose surgery when probabilities favored surgery, β = 0.57, P < 0.001, but when probabilities favored watchful waiting, ESP had a near-zero relationship with choice, β = 0.05, P < 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of ESP in decision making is context specific. Higher levels of ESP predict choosing action when that action is warranted but do not predict a shift away from surgery when watchful waiting offers better chances of survival. ESP does not overcome the commission bias.

HIGHLIGHTS

Past studies have identified a "commission bias," a tendency to choose active treatment over watchful waiting, even when mortality rate is lower for waiting.Evaluation of risk probabilities is related to individual differences in emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP) and has been shown to predict reactions to and decisions about health risk situations.ESP appears to be selectively factored into decision making. ESP was a robust predictor of choosing surgery when probability information supported surgery but did not predict decisions when probability information supported watchful waiting.Those who are most emotionally attuned to probabilities are just as susceptible to the commission bias as those who are less attuned.

The TRIBE model: How socioemotional processes fuel end-of-life treatment in the United States

Prior interventions have repeatedly failed to decrease the prescription and receipt of treatments and procedures that confer more harm than benefit at the End-of-Life (EoL); new approaches to intervention are needed. Ideally, future interventions would be informed by a social-ecological conceptual model that explains EoL healthcare utilization patterns, but current models ignore two facts: (1) healthcare is an inherently social activity, involving clinical teams and patients' social networks, and (2) emotions influence social activity. To address these omissions, we scaffolded Terror Management Theory and Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to create the Transtheoretical Model of Irrational Biomedical Exuberance (TRIBE). Based on Terror Management Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of patient death motivates healthcare teams to conform to a biomedical norm of care, even when clinicians believe that biomedical interventions will likely be unhelpful. Based on Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, TRIBE suggests that the prospect of dwindling time motivates families to prioritize emotional goals, and leads patients to consent to disease-directed treatments they know will likely be unhelpful, as moral emotions motivate deference to the perceived emotional needs of their loved ones. TRIBE is unique among models of healthcare utilization in its acknowledgement that moral emotions and processes (e.g., shame, compassion, regret-avoidance) influence healthcare delivery, patients' interactions with family members, and patients' outcomes. TRIBE is especially relevant to potentially harmful EoL care in the United States, and it also offers insights into the epidemics of overtreatment in healthcare settings worldwide. By outlining the role of socioemotional processes in the care of persons with serious conditions, TRIBE underscores the critical need for psychological innovation in interventions, health policy and research on healthcare utilization.

The Impact of Breast Density Information or Notification on Women's Cognitive, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Breast density (BD) is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and reduces the sensitivity of mammography. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence from existing studies to understand the impact of BD information and/or notification on women's cognitive, psychological, and behavioral outcomes.

METHODS

Studies were identified via relevant database searches up to March 2020. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of the 1134 titles identified, 29 studies were included. Twenty-three studies were quantitative, including only 1 randomized controlled trial of women receiving BD information, and 6 were qualitative. Twenty-seven studies were conducted in the United States, with 19 conducted post-BD legislation. The overall results in terms of BD awareness, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and intentions were heterogeneous across included studies, with the strongest consistency demonstrated regarding the importance of communication with and involvement of health-care professionals. Together, the studies did, however, highlight that there is still limited awareness of BD in the community, especially in more socioeconomic disadvantaged communities, and limited knowledge about what BD means and the implications for women. Importantly, BD information in the context of overall breast cancer risk has not yet been studied.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important gaps in the understanding of the impact of BD information or notification on women and how best to communicate BD information to women. More high-quality evidence to inform both current and future practice related to BD is still needed.

Differences in treatment choices between prostate cancer patients using a decision aid and patients receiving care as usual: results from a randomized controlled trial

Objective

To determine whether or not decision aid (DA) use influences treatment decisions in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PC).

Patients and methods

In a cluster randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized to either DA use (DA group) or no DA use (control group). Between 2014 and 2016, newly diagnosed patients with low or intermediate risk PC were recruited in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands. DA users had access to a web-based DA that provided general PC information, PC-treatment information, and values clarification exercises to elicit personal preferences towards the treatment options. Control group patients received care as usual. Differences in treatment choice were analysed using multilevel logistic regressions. Differences in eligible treatment options between groups were compared using Pearson Chi-square tests.

Results

Informed consent was given by 382 patients (DA group N = 273, control group N = 109). Questionnaire response rate was 88% (N = 336). Active surveillance (AS) was an option for 38%, radical prostatectomy (RP) for 98%, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for 88%, and brachytherapy (BT) for 79% of patients. DA users received AS significantly more often than control group. Patients (29 vs 16%, p = 0.01), whereas the latter more often chose BT (29 vs 18%, p < 0.01). No differences were found between groups regarding RP and EBRT. DA users who were not eligible for AS, received surgery more often compared to the control group (53 vs 35%, p = 0.01). Patient and disease characteristics were evenly distributed between groups.

Conclusion

DA-using PC patients chose the AS treatment option more often than non-DA-using patients did.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-021-03782-7.

When Is a Harm a Harm? Discordance between Patient and Medical Experts' Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Attributes

BACKGROUND

A shared decision-making (SDM) process for lung cancer screening (LCS) includes a discussion between clinicians and patients about benefits and potential harms. Expert-driven taxonomies consider mortality reduction a benefit and consider false-positives, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, radiation exposure, and direct and indirect costs of LCS as potential harms.

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether patients conceptualize the attributes of LCS differently from expert-driven taxonomies.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study with semistructured interviews and a card-sort activity.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three Veterans receiving primary care at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 55 to 73 y of age with 30 or more pack-years of smoking. Sixty-one percent were non-Hispanic African American or Black, 35% were non-Hispanic White, 4% were Hispanic, and 9% were female.

APPROACH

Semistructured interviews with thematic coding.

MAIN MEASURES

The proportion of participants categorizing each attribute as a benefit or harm and emergent themes that informed this categorization.

KEY RESULTS

In addition to categorizing reduced lung cancer deaths as a benefit (22/23), most also categorized the following as benefits: routine annual screening (8/9), significant incidental findings (20/23), follow-up in a nodule clinic (20/23), and invasive procedures (16/23). Four attributes were classified by most participants as a harm: false-positive (13/22), overdiagnosis (13/23), overtreatment (6/9), and radiation exposure (20/22). Themes regarding the evaluation of LCS outcomes were 1) the value of knowledge about body and health, 2) anticipated positive and negative emotions, 3) lack of clarity in terminology, 4) underlying beliefs about cancer, and 5) risk assessment and tolerance for uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipating discordance between patient- and expert-driven taxonomies of the benefits and harms of LCS can inform the development and interpretation of value elicitation and SDM discussions.

Media coverage of calls to rename low-risk cancers: a content analysis

OBJECTIVES

The use of more medicalised labels can increase both concern about illness and the desire for more invasive treatment. This study analyses the media's coverage of an Analysis article in The BMJ which generated a large amount of high-profile international media coverage. It aims to understand how to better communicate messages about low-risk cancers and overdiagnosis to the public.

DESIGN

Content analysis of media coverage.

SETTING

Media was identified by Isentia Media Portal, searched in Google News and cross-checked in Factiva and Proquest databases from August 2018.

METHODS

Media headlines, full text and open access public comments responding to the coverage on the article proposing to 'rename low-risk conditions currently labelled as cancer' were analysed to determine the main themes.

RESULTS

45 original media articles and their associated public comments (n=167) were identified and included in the analysis. Overall, headlines focused on cancer generally and there was little mention of 'low-risk', 'overdiagnosis' or 'overtreatment'. The full text generally presented a more balanced view of the evidence and were supportive of the proposal, however, public responses tended to be more negative towards the idea of renaming low-risk cancers and indicated confusion. Comments seemed to focus on the headlines rather than the full article.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers a novel insight into media coverage of the complex and counterintuitive problem of overdiagnosis. Continued deliberation on how to communicate similar topics to the public through the mainstream media is needed. Future work in the area of low-risk cancer communication should consider the powerful impact of people's previous experience with a cancer diagnosis and the criticism about being paternalistic and concealing the truth from patients.

Too Much Medicine: Behavioral Science Insights on Overutilization, Overdiagnosis, and Overtreatment in Health Care

Overutilization—defined as the use of health care services for which the benefits do not outweigh the harms—has been identified as one of the leading contributors to the rising cost of health care in the United States. Although informational interventions designed to address overutilization have had a significant, but modest, impact on the rate of overutilization, they have not been sufficient to solve the problem. Also, various psychological mechanisms contribute to the desire for more medical tests and treatments. To effectively address overutilization, we need to better understand the psychological underpinnings of overuse in medicine. The article reviews recent findings from the behavioral science literature—including reliance on anecdotal evidence, test-related affect, the use of diagnostic labels, and medical maximizing tendencies—that lend insight into why patients sometimes seek, demand, or expect medical tests and treatments that are considered by experts to be low value.

Spontaneous mental associations with the words "side effect": Implications for informed and shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into patients' medical decisions by exploring the content of laypeople's spontaneous mental associations with the term "side effect."

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey asked 144 women aged 40-74, "What are the first three things you think of when you hear the words 'side effect?"' Data were analyzed using content analysis, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

17 codes emerged and were grouped into 4 themes and a Miscellaneous category: Health Problems (70.8% of participants), Decision-Relevant Evaluations (52.8%), Negative Affect (30.6%), Practical Considerations (18.1%) and Miscellaneous (9.7%). The 4 most frequently identified codes were: Risk (36.1%), Health Problems-Specific Symptoms (35.4%), Health Problems-General Terms (32.6%), and Negative Affect-Strong (19.4%). Code and theme frequencies were generally similar across demographic groups (ps>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The term "side effect" spontaneously elicited comments related to identifying health problems and expressing negative emotions. This might explain why the mere possibility of side effects triggers negative affect for people making medical decisions. Some respondents also mentioned decision-relevant evaluations and practical considerations in response to side effects.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Addressing commonly-held associations and acknowledging negative affects provoked by side effects are first steps healthcare providers can take towards improving informed and shared patient decision making.

A Systematic Approach to Discussing Active Surveillance with Patients with Low-risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Physicians report difficulty convincing patients with prostate cancer about the merits of active surveillance (AS); as a result, a majority of patients unnecessarily choose to undergo radical treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a systematic approach for physicians to counsel patients with low-risk prostate cancer to increase acceptance of AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A systematic counseling approach was developed and piloted in one clinic. Then five surgeons participated in a 1-h training session in which they learned about the approach. A total of 1003 patients with Gleason 3+3 prostate cancer were included in the study. We compared AS rates for 761 patients who were counseled over a 24-mo period before the training intervention with AS rates for 242 patients who were counseled over a 12-mo period afterwards, controlling for temporal trends and case mix.

INTERVENTION

A systematic approach for communicating the merits of AS using appropriate framing techniques derived from principles studied by negotiation scholars.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The rate of AS acceptance by patients for management of low-risk prostate cancer.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In the pilot phase, 81 of 86 patients (94%) accepted AS after counseling by the physician who developed the counseling approach. In the subsequent study, the cohort for the training intervention comprised 1003 consecutive patients, 80% of whom met the Epstein criteria for very low-risk disease. The proportion of patients who selected AS increased from 69% before the training intervention to 81% afterwards. After adjusting for time trends and case mix, the rate of AS after the intervention was 9.1% higher (95% confidence interval -0.4% to 19.4%) than expected, a relative reduction of approximately 30% in the risk of unnecessary curative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic approach to counseling can be taught to physicians in a 1-h lecture. We found evidence that even this minimal intervention can decrease overtreatment. Our novel approach offers a framework to help address cancer screening-related overtreatment that occurs across medicine.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this study, we evaluated the impact of teaching physicians how to better communicate the benefits and risks of prostate cancer treatments on the willingness of patients to choose active surveillance. Decisions related to cancer are often guided by emotions and biases that lead most patients to seek radical treatment; however, we demonstrated that if discussions are framed differently, these biases can be overcome and more patients will choose active surveillance.

Doctor-patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment

We conduct a framed field experiment among patients and doctors to test whether the two groups have similar risk and time preferences. We elicit risk and time preferences using multiple price list tests and their adaptations to the healthcare context. Risk and time preferences are compared in terms of switching points in the tests and the structurally estimated behavioural parameters. We find that doctors and patients significantly differ in their time preferences: doctors discount future outcomes less heavily than patients. We find no evidence that doctors and patients systematically differ in their risk preferences in the healthcare domain.

Biases and Heuristics in Decision Making and Their Impact on Autonomy

Cognitive scientists have identified a wide range of biases and heuristics in human decision making over the past few decades. Only recently have bioethicists begun to think seriously about the implications of these findings for topics such as agency, autonomy, and consent. This article aims to provide an overview of biases and heuristics that have been identified and a framework in which to think comprehensively about the impact of them on the exercise of autonomous decision making. I analyze the impact that these biases and heuristics have on the following dimensions of autonomy: understanding, intentionality, absence of alienating or controlling influence, and match between formally autonomous preferences or decisions and actual choices or actions.

How different terminology for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) impacts women's concern and management preferences: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

There are increasing rates of mastectomy and bi-lateral mastectomy in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). To help women avoid decisions that lead to unnecessary aggressive treatments, there have been recent calls to remove the cancer terminology from descriptions of DCIS. We investigated how different proposed terminologies for DCIS affect women's perceived concern and management preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a community sample of 26 Australian women varying by education and cancer screening experience. Women responded to a hypothetical scenario using terminology with and without the cancer term to describe DCIS.

RESULTS

Among a sample of women with no experience of a DCIS diagnosis, a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS elicited high concern regardless of the terminology used to describe it. Women generally exhibited stronger negative reactions when a cancer term was used to describe DCIS compared to a non-cancer term, and most preferred the diagnosis be given as a description of abnormal cells. Overall women expressed interest in watchful waiting for DCIS but displayed preferences for very frequent monitoring with this management approach.

CONCLUSION

Communicating a diagnosis of DCIS using terminology that does not include the cancer term was preferred by many women and may enable discussions about more conservative management options. However, women's preference for frequent monitoring during watchful waiting suggests women need more education and reassurance about this management approach.

Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy

BACKGROUND

The role of cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making is of growing interest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on actual or hypothetical decisions and are conducted with populations that are representative of those who typically make the medical decision; to categorize the types of cognitive biases and heuristics found and whether they are found in patients or in medical personnel; and to critically review the studies based on standard methodological quality criteria.

METHOD

Data sources were original, peer-reviewed, empirical studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making found in Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and the CINAHL databases published in 1980-2013. Predefined exclusion criteria were used to identify 213 studies. During data extraction, information was collected on type of bias or heuristic studied, respondent population, decision type, study type (actual or hypothetical), study method, and study conclusion.

RESULTS

Of the 213 studies analyzed, 164 (77%) were based on hypothetical vignettes, and 175 (82%) were conducted with representative populations. Nineteen types of cognitive biases and heuristics were found. Only 34% of studies (n = 73) investigated medical personnel, and 68% (n = 145) confirmed the presence of a bias or heuristic. Each methodological quality criterion was satisfied by more than 50% of the studies, except for sample size and validated instruments/questions. Limitations are that existing terms were used to inform search terms, and study inclusion criteria focused strictly on decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the studies on biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on hypothetical vignettes, raising concerns about applicability of these findings to actual decision making. Biases and heuristics have been underinvestigated in medical personnel compared with patients.

Prevention praised, cure preferred: results of between-subjects experimental studies comparing (monetary) appreciation for preventive and curative interventions

Background

'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ is a common saying, and indeed, most health economic studies conclude that people are more willing to pay for preventive measures than for treatment activities. This may be because most health economic studies ask respondents to compare preventive measures with treatment, and thus prompt respondents to consider other uses of resources. However, psychological theorizing suggests that, when methods do not challenge subjects to consider other uses of resources, curative treatment is favored over prevention. Could it be that while prevention is praised, cure is preferred?

Methods

In two experimental studies, we investigated, from a psychological perspective and using a between-subjects design, whether prevention or treatment is preferred and why. In both studies, participants first read a lung cancer prevention or treatment intervention scenario that varied on the prevention-treatment dimension, but that were the same on factors like 'costs per saved life’ and kind of disease. Then participants completed a survey measuring appreciation (general and monetary) as well as a number of potential mediating variables.

Results

Both studies clearly demonstrated that, when the design was between-subjects, participants had greater (general and monetary) appreciation for treatment interventions than for preventive interventions with perceived urgency of the intervention quite consistently mediating this effect. Differences in appreciation of treatment over preventive treatment were shown to be .59 (Study 1) and .45 (Study 2) on a 5-point scale. Furthermore, participants thought that health insurance should compensate more for the treatment than for preventive measures, differences of 16% (Study 1), and 22% (Study 2). When participants were asked to directly compare both interventions on the basis of a short description, they preferred the preventive intervention.

Conclusion

It appears that people claim to prefer prevention when they are asked to consider other use of resources, but otherwise they prefer treatment. This preference is related to perceived urgency. The preference for treatment may be related to the prevention-treatment dimension itself, but also to variations on other dimensions that are inherently linked to prevention and treatment (like different efficacy rates and costs per treatment).

Competing risks of death in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma: a comorbidity based model

PURPOSE

Multiple risks compete with cancer as the primary cause of death. These factors must be considered against the benefits of treatment. We constructed a model of competing causes of death to help contextualize treatment trade-off analyses in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 6,655 individuals 66 years old or older with localized renal cell carcinoma in the linked SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare data set for 1995 to 2005. We used Fine and Gray competing risks proportional hazards regression to predict probabilities of competing mortality outcomes. Prognostic markers included race, gender, tumor size, age and the Charlson comorbidity index score.

RESULTS

At a median followup of 43 months, age and comorbidity score strongly correlated with patient mortality and were most predictive of nonkidney cancer death, as measured by concordance statistics. Patients with localized, node negative kidney cancer had a low 3 (4.7%), 5 (7.5%) and 10-year (11.9%) probability of cancer specific death but a significantly higher overall risk of death from competing causes within 3 (10.9%), 5 (20.1%) and 10 years (44.4%) of renal cell carcinoma diagnosis, depending on comorbidity score.

CONCLUSIONS

Informed treatment decisions regarding patients with solid tumors must integrate not only cancer related variables but also factors that predict noncancer death. We established a comorbidity based predictive model that may assist in patient counseling by allowing quantification and comparison of competing risks of death in patients 66 years old or older with localized renal cell carcinoma who elect to proceed with surgery.

Effect of specialty and recent experience on perioperative decision-making for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether recent experience and specialty choice would affect physician adherence to evidence-based guidelines.

DESIGN

In a series of computer-simulated encounters, participants weighed the risk of spontaneous abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture against the risk of perioperative death to determine timing for elective repair. Guideline recommendations and statistical information on the risks of rupture and surgical death were provided.

SETTING

Annual meetings of the American Geriatrics Society, American College of Surgeons, and American Society of Anesthesiologists.

PARTICIPANTS

Physicians.

INTERVENTION

Before the simulation, each participant was randomly exposed to one of three simulated outcomes: death during watchful waiting (WWD), perioperative death (PD), or successful outcome (SO).

MEASUREMENTS

Adherence to recommended guidelines for AAA treatment.

RESULTS

Against guideline recommendations, 67% of geriatricians, 74% of anesthesiologists, and 77% of surgeons chose surgery when the rupture risk was lower than the risk of perioperative death (P < .05). Surgeons exposed to the WWD experience chose surgery significantly earlier than if they were exposed to a PD or SO experience (P < .001). Anesthesiologist choices did not differ with recent experience.

CONCLUSION

Geriatrician decisions more closely followed guideline recommendations for AAA management than those of two other specialties typically involved in AAA care. A prior WWD affected surgeons most, geriatricians next, and anesthesiologists least. Geriatricians referring patients for AAA surgery should be aware of specialty-specific differences in perioperative decision behavior.

Questioning context: a set of interdisciplinary questions for investigating contextual factors affecting health decision making

OBJECTIVE

To combine insights from multiple disciplines into a set of questions that can be used to investigate contextual factors affecting health decision making.

BACKGROUND

Decision-making processes and outcomes may be shaped by a range of non-medical or 'contextual' factors particular to an individual including social, economic, political, geographical and institutional conditions. Research concerning contextual factors occurs across many disciplines and theoretical domains, but few conceptual tools have attempted to integrate and translate this wide-ranging research for health decision-making purposes.

METHODS

To formulate this tool we employed an iterative, collaborative process of scenario development and question generation. Five hypothetical health decision-making scenarios (preventative, screening, curative, supportive and palliative) were developed and used to generate a set of exploratory questions that aim to highlight potential contextual factors across a range of health decisions.

FINDINGS

We present an exploratory tool consisting of questions organized into four thematic domains - Bodies, Technologies, Place and Work (BTPW) - articulating wide-ranging contextual factors relevant to health decision making. The BTPW tool encompasses health-related scholarship and research from a range of disciplines pertinent to health decision making, and identifies concrete points of intersection between its four thematic domains. Examples of the practical application of the questions are also provided.

CONCLUSIONS

These exploratory questions provide an interdisciplinary toolkit for identifying the complex contextual factors affecting decision making. The set of questions comprised by the BTPW tool may be applied wholly or partially in the context of clinical practice, policy development and health-related research.

Communication between patients and providers and informed decision making

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) need to comprehend the meaning of the diagnosis and the potential benefits and harms of treatment options. Full and understandable information is a requirement, not an option. However, with DCIS, as with many areas of medicine, a high level of uncertainty about the disease remains. In this article, we define informed medical decision making, review challenges to its implementation, and provide suggestions on how to improve communication with women about the diagnosis and treatment of DCIS.

What Makes a Tumor Diagnosis a Call to Action? On the Preference for Action versus Inaction

Background. Many studies have shown an omission bias, but when the context is cancer, people seem to prefer active treatments to watchful waiting. Objective. First, to investigate whether the preference for active treatment for cancer could depend on the associations attached to the inaction option, and second, to explore the kind of diagnosis that gives rise to the preference for action, by comparing scenarios differing in the status of the illness (already present v. could arise in the future), the kind of diagnosis (malign tumor, benign tumor, or nontumor), and the possible development of the tumor (growth v. degeneration). Design. Between-subjects design with 8 hypothetical scenarios. Participants. A total of 735 students participated in an Internet survey. Measurements. Choice between watchful waiting and surgery, perceived severity of the diagnosis. Results. Active treatment was preferred only when the scenario described watchful waiting as excluding surgery in the future. The critical aspect for participants’ preference for active treatment was the malignancy of the tumor currently diagnosed. Perceived severity was also a significant predictor of treatment choice. Limitations. Inability to infer causation in the relationship between choice and perceived severity. Conclusions. Action is preferred to inaction when a malignant tumor is currently diagnosed and active treatments are not allowed in the future; under other conditions, participants prefer inaction (e.g., when active treatments are allowed in the future, or when the tumor is benign) or exhibit no preference (e.g., when it is not specified whether active treatments are allowed in the future).

Offering Chemotherapy and Hospice Jointly: One Solution to Hospice Underuse

Purpose . Patients with advanced lung cancer typically receive chemotherapy at the cost of receiving care that may promote quality of life more effectively. The authors examined whether offering chemotherapy and hospice concurrently, a clinically appropriate but often unavailable option, might resolve this problem. Method. Adult smokers (N = 198) completed an Internet-based survey in which they imagined having advanced lung cancer. Participants rated the effectiveness of 4 treatments (supportive care alone, chemotherapy with supportive care, hospice, and chemotherapy with hospice) at achieving 4 goals of treatment (extending survival, controlling symptoms, avoiding side effects, and promoting quality of life at the end of life). Results. Reflecting utilization patterns of lung cancer patients, few respondents preferred supportive care alone (10%) or hospice (19%), and many preferred chemotherapy (29%). The most common choice was concurrent chemotherapy and hospice (42%). Treatments that involved chemotherapy were seen as the most effective at extending survival, whereas treatments that involved hospice were seen as most effective at promoting quality of life. Effectiveness ratings were weakly related to preferences for hospice, moderately related to preferences for chemotherapy with supportive care, and strongly related to preferences for chemotherapy and hospice together. Conclusions. These findings suggest that interest in hospice may be low because, offered without chemotherapy, hospice is perceived as ineffective at controlling symptoms and avoiding side effects. Chemotherapy and hospice together may be a preferred option for treating advanced lung cancer. Furthermore, preferences for chemotherapy and hospice together best reflect the values people placed on the goals of treatment.

Temporal trends and predictors of perioperative chemotherapy use in elderly patients with resected nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The authors assessed patterns of perioperative chemotherapy use in elderly patients with resected stage I, II, or IIIA nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 1992 to 2002.

METHODS

By using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, 11,807 patients were identified who had resected stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC between 1992 and 2002 and survived >or=120 days beyond diagnosis. The rate of perioperative chemotherapy use was measured by calendar year, and the association between clinical/demographic characteristics and the receipt of chemotherapy was examined by using logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 957 patients with stage I, II, or IIIA NSCLC (8.1% of the study population) received perioperative chemotherapy. The proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy for stage I NSCLC changed little during the study period. Of 3230 patients with stage II and IIIA NSCLC, 609 patients (18.9%) received chemotherapy, 423 patients (13%) received chemotherapy combined with radiation. 452 patients (15.6%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 66 patients (2.3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The use of chemotherapy increased significantly among patients who were diagnosed after 1994 relative to patients who were diagnosed in 1992 after controlling for sociodemographic and treatment characteristics (P< .001). There was significantly increased use of new-generation chemotherapy agents, such as carboplatin and taxanes (P< .001). The proportion of patients receiving combined-modality therapy also increased significant (P< .001). Younger age, being married, having advanced-stage tumor or adenocarcinoma, having a later diagnosis year, receiving radiation, and seeing an oncologist were predictors for the receipt of chemotherapy (P< .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with NSCLC received perioperative chemotherapy. Specifically designed prospective trials that focus on older patients are needed.

Vivid bad outcome influences the decisions of older adults about treatment timing: a randomized field experiment with an abdominal aortic aneurysm analog

In balancing the risk of rupture from an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) against the risk of perioperative mortality, data-based guidelines recommend surgical repair when the AAA diameter reaches 5.5 cm, whereas smaller AAAs should be followed with periodic surveillance. Previous work with vascular surgeon subjects and a computer-based AAA analog simulation showed that, even when constantly updated with the relevant statistics, experiencing a prior bad watchful waiting outcome shortened the time until they made the decision to operate. Using the same simulation, this field experiment enrolled healthy older volunteers (n = 107). Participants were randomly assigned to experience either a bad outcome demonstration with an expanding balloon that bursts (experimental) or an expanding, nonbursting balloon (control). Participants then made decisions about how many times to allow the balloon to expand before opting-out of the simulation. The main outcome measure was the amount of time participants continued watchful waiting before opting-out. A Cox-regression analysis assessed the likelihood of opting-out after each expansion while controlling for censoring and important covariates, including baseline anxiety, uncertainty attitudes, and risk preferences. The bad outcome demonstration group ended the simulation significantly earlier than did the control subjects (Hazard ratio: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.05-3.74). These results extend previous findings from vascular surgeons to older adults at higher risk for AAA. The preceding bad outcome influenced subsequent decisions, even when statistical risk information was readily available. The influence of recent experience on medical decision making by patients with life-threatening conditions may be under-appreciated.

The risk-benefit balance in the United States: who decides?

A health policy decision often requires a balancing of risks, costs, and benefits. In this paper we illustrate that there is no uniform answer in the United States to the question of who decides the risk-benefit balance. We use a wide range of case examples from medicine and public health to show the different approaches that are used to allocate decision-making responsibility. Our ultimate purpose is to urge the U.S. health policy community to develop a more consistent way of thinking about how risk-benefit decisions could be guided by general principles.

Who decides? Living donor liver transplantation for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Few effective treatment options are available for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Some transplant centers have begun offering living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for selected patients whose HCC exceeds Milan criteria by a small margin. However, this remains a controversial subject. In this article, we weigh the arguments for and against LDLT for advanced HCC. Because donor autonomy forms the crux of this dilemma, the real question becomes: to whom does the decision belong, the individual donors or the medical community? We argue that donor autonomy should not be paramount in settings where the recipient benefit is uncertain.

[Palliative chemotherapy and CUP-syndrome: medical intentions versus patients' attitudes in decision making]

The following case report is about a 55 year old male patient with CUP-syndrome. After developing a malignant bowel obstruction he received five cycles of a palliative chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and irinotecan. The focus is on medical intentions and goals concerning palliative chemotherapy and on discussing patients' attitudes towards chemotherapy. Communication is identified as fundamental skill in shared decision making. On the one hand it improves Patients' satisfaction and palliative care and on the other hand it reduces psychological and existential suffering. In tumors of unknown primary site regimens with different combinations of Platin, Taxol, Etoposide, Irinotecan and Gemcitabine showed responses up to 46% and a survival benefit with an overall median survival up to 12 months and even long term survival.