Qualitative Study of Factors Affecting Patient, Caregiver and Physician Preferences for Treatment of Myeloma and Indolent Lymphoma

Factors Affecting Patient and Caregiver Preferences for Treatment of Myeloma and Indolent Lymphoma

PURPOSE

Treatment options for myeloma and indolent lymphoma are increasing exponentially, with distinct efficacy, side effects, and cost. We aim to determine the factors influencing patient and caregiver treatment preferences.

METHODS

Patients and caregivers of patients with myeloma and indolent lymphoma were recruited from two cancer centers in Singapore. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes and levels were selected based on a previous qualitative study. The relative preference for levels within each attribute (part worth utility values) and the extent to which an attribute would influence decision making (relative importance) were calculated. Patient and caregiver participation in the treatment plan selection process were assessed using the Control Preference Scale.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-nine patients and 169 caregivers were recruited. Patients placed the highest importance on out-of-pocket costs (relative importance = 35%), followed by efficacy (25%), persistent side effects (19%), administration route (8%), treatment duration (7%), and short-term side effects (5%). Caregivers ranked efficacy (27%) as the most important attribute, over out-of-pocket costs (24%). Most patients preferred a collaborative role in the shared decision-making process, while similar proportions of caregivers favored active and collaborative roles.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that both patients and caregivers consider cost seriously when making treatment decisions. Furthermore, as patient and caregiver preferences may differ, there are implications for treatment selection and counseling, especially in cultures where caregivers have more prominent roles in treatment planning.

Differences between physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is useful to facilitate cancer treatment decisions. However, it is difficult to make treatment decisions when physician and patient preferences are different. This review aimed to summarize and compare the preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus. Studies elicited and compared preferences for cancer treatments between physicians and patients were included. Information about the study design and preference measuring attributes or questions were extracted. The available relative rank of every attribute in discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies and answers to preference measuring questions in non-DCE studies were summarized followed by a narrative synthesis to reflect the preference differences.

RESULTS

Of 12,959 studies identified, 8290 were included in the title and abstract screening and 48 were included in the full text screening. Included 37 studies measured the preferences from six treatment-related aspects: health benefit, adverse effects, treatment process, cost, impact on quality of life, and provider qualification. The trade-off between health benefit and adverse effects was the main focus of the included studies. DCE studies showed patients gave a higher rank on health benefit and treatment process, while physicians gave a higher rank on adverse effects. Non-DCE studies suggested that patients were willing to take a higher risk of adverse effects or lower health benefit than physicians when accepting a treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians and patients had important preference differences for cancer treatment. More sufficient communication is needed in cancer treatment decision-making.

Providing Care to People Living with a Chronic Hematological Malignancy: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of Informal Carers' Experiences

OBJECTIVE

Chronic hematological malignancies such as multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), indolent B-cell lymphomas, and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) have seen significant advances in treatment. Treatment developments have resulted in patients living for many years, often between periods of being acutely unwell, relapses, and remission. Informal carers play a major role in supporting patients through the uncertain and long illness trajectory. This qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) aims to synthesize qualitative research evidence on the experiences of informal carers caring for a patient with a chronic hematological malignancy (CHM).

DATA SOURCES

This qualitative evidence synthesis followed the Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) guidelines and adopted a "best fit" framework synthesis approach using a "redefining normal" conceptual framework. A systematic search of seven databases was undertaken.

CONCLUSION

Sixteen qualitative studies were synthesized in this review. Eight review findings illuminated carers' unmet information needs, challenges with caring responsibilities, end-of-life care, and changes in the dyad carer-patient relationship.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

This best-fit framework synthesis illuminates the wide-ranging challenges experienced by informal caregivers of people living with a chronic hematological malignancy. Carers' fear for the future highlights the need for interventions to support them with their fears. Carers' priority on their loved one's quality of life is impaired by late end-of-life discussions often not occurring until a sudden deterioration in the patient's condition. Early supportive relationships between carers and health care providers can promote conversations on poor prognosis and end-of-life care. Future research should focus on qualitative longitudinal studies with caregiver-patient dyads.

How Do Treatment Preferences of Patients With Cancer Compare With Those of Oncologists and Family Members? Evidence From a Discrete Choice Experiment in China

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the treatment preference among oncologists, patients with lung cancer, and their family members in China.

METHODS

A face-to-face discrete choice experiment survey was conducted among oncologists, patients, and their family members. Participants completed 13 choice sets describing 6 key attributes, namely, overall survival time, risk of severe adverse effect, severity of pain, appetite, physical functioning status, and monthly cost. Mixed logit model and latent class analysis were used to estimate attribute level preference weights and the relative importance (RI) for attributes. The willingness to pay (WTP) and maximum acceptable risk (MAR) were also estimated. The RI, WTP, and MAR of oncologists, patients, and family members were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 121 oncologists and 161 dyads of patients and family members completed the survey. Overall survival time, physical functioning status, and pain were the 3 most important attributes across all 3 groups. Oncologists and family members had higher RI on overall survival time than patients (48% and 51% vs 38%). Patients had higher RI on physical functioning status and pain (23% and 14%) than oncologists (13% and 12%) and family members (16% and 11%). For extending survival, patients had the least WTP, and family members had the highest MAR. The latent class analysis identified 2 classes in the patient group and 3 classes in oncologist and family member groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There were differences in preferences for survival, risk, quality of life, and costs associated with cancer treatments among patients, oncologists, and family members. This finding highlights the need of involving patients in treatment decision making in China.

The work of managing multiple myeloma and its implications for treatment-related decision making: a qualitative study of patient and caregiver experiences

Background

The evolving nature of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies, including the introduction of novel oral agents, has produced a shift in the delivery of care from hospital to home. Within this context, patients and their caregivers are becoming increasingly engaged in the work of illness management, however the exact nature of this work as well as the ways in which this work informs treatment preferences and decisions within this population has not been explored. This qualitative study sought to develop an in-depth understanding of patient and caregiver experiences with different MM treatments, the work necessitated by MM and treatment management, and the processes of patient/caregiver treatment-related decision making.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 MM patients and 8 caregivers. Interviews were coded for emergent themes and patterns and a constant comparative approach was used to identify important similarities and differences within and between interviews.

Results

Patient and caregiver participants described four types of work, including the work of accruing and personalizing medical knowledge, illness-related work in the hospital, illness-related work in the home, and psychosocial and relational management. They illuminated the physical, psychological, social and relational toll of this work and traced a pathway through which work informed their treatment-related decisions, sometimes in ways that conflicted with their preferences for treatment.

Conclusions

The work involved in managing MM, its treatment, and side-effects can inform the treatment decisions that patients and caregivers make. We must continue to find meaningful ways for patients and caregivers to discuss goals of care and treatment throughout the cancer trajectory, as well as support health care providers in the delivery of person-centred cancer care. With an increasing emphasis on the importance of shared decision making in MM, an improved understanding of the factors that frame patient’s and caregiver’s treatment decisions will be paramount to ensuring meaningful and high-quality patient-centered care.

Differences in Lung Cancer Treatment Preferences Among Oncologists, Patients and Family Members: A Semi-Structured Qualitative Study in China

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment decision-making often needs to balance benefits, harms, and costs. This study sought to identify the differences in cancer treatment preference among oncologists, patients and their family members in China.

METHODS

A semi-structured face-to-face qualitative interview was conducted among oncologists, patients and their family members recruited in four tertiary hospitals in China. The interview guide was developed based on literature review and expert consultation. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences when making lung cancer treatment decisions. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analyzed. The preferences were compared among three groups of participants.

RESULTS

A total of 17 participants (5 oncologists, 6 dyads of patients and family members) were interviewed between June and July 2019. Five themes, namely, survival benefit, adverse effect/symptom, treatment process, treatment cost, and the impact on daily life were identified. The oncologists and family members gave highest priority on survival benefit, while the patients are concerned most about treatment cost and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals different preferences for cancer treatment among oncologists, patients and their family members in China. Education is needed to empower patients and family members and promote share decision-making in this country.

Treatment decision-making among patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: A qualitative study

Oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) is now the most common site of head and neck squamous cell cancer. Despite the focus on treatment deintensification in clinical trials, little is known about the preferences, experiences and needs of patients with OPSCC when deciding between surgery and radiation therapy as primary treatment with curative intent. In this qualitative study, pre-treatment and post-treatment oropharyngeal cancer patients were recruited to take part in one-on-one interviews (n = 11 pre-treatment) and focus group discussions (n = 15 post-treatment) about treatment decision-making. Recordings were transcribed and assessed for emergent themes using framework analysis. From the one-on-one interviews and focus group discussions with OPSCC patients, fourteen themes were identified. Participants expressed alarm at diagnosis, decisional conflict, and a variety of roles in decision-making (physician-controlled, shared, and autonomous). Decisions were driven by the perceived recommendation of the treatment team, a desire for physical (surgical) tumor removal, fear of adverse effects of treatment, and patient-specific values. Although participants felt well-informed by their treating physicians, they identified a need for additional patient-centered information. Participants were critical of the poor quality of information available on the internet, and acknowledged the advantage of hearing the experiences of post-treatment patients. The experiences identified herein may be used to guide patient-centered communication during patient counseling and to inform interventions designed to support patients' needs at diagnosis, ultimately helping to implement high-quality, patient-centered care.