The choice is yours? How women with ovarian cancer make sense of treatment choices

Harmful communication behaviors in cancer care: A systematic review of patients and family caregivers perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Issues regarding clinician communication remain an important source of complaints within healthcare. This systematic review aims to determine cancer patients' and their family caregivers' views on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm (i.e. eliciting negative feelings/consequences for patients/family caregivers).

METHODS

We searched for all types of peer-reviewed studies that determined adult (≥18 years) cancer patients' and/or family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm in several databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier), supplemented by expert-consultation. Studies were screened using the Artificial intelligence screening tool of ASReview and data was analyzed using Thematic Analysis. To assess the quality of the studies the Qualsyst critical appraisal tool was used.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were included. Four main themes of harmful communication behaviors were identified: (1) Lack of tailored information provision (e.g. giving too little or too much/specific information) (2) Lack of tailored decision making (ranging from; patient exclusion, to the patients' responsibility, and/or haste) (3) Lack of feeling seen and heard (seen as a disease, not as a human being; not listened to concerns and emotions) (4) Lack of feeling held and remembered (forgotten agreements; lack of care continuity).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results reveal an overview of patients' and family caregivers' perspectives on which clinicians' communication behaviors can harm. Harm could be prevented when information and decision involvement are tailored and patients' and family caregivers' needs to feel seen, heard, held and remembered are met.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

Communicating is analogous to caring: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of the patient-clinician communication experiences of individuals with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and synthesize the patient-clinician communication experiences of individuals with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

The CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were reviewed for articles that described (a) original qualitative or mixed methods research, (b) the experiences of individuals with ovarian cancer, and (c) findings related to patient-clinician communication. Relevant data were extracted from study results sections, then coded for descriptive and analytical themes in accordance with Thomas and Harden's approach to thematic synthesis. Data were coded by two authors and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS

Of 1,390 unique articles, 65 met criteria for inclusion. Four descriptive themes captured participants' experiences communicating with clinicians: respecting me, seeing me, supporting me, and advocating for myself. Findings were synthesized into three analytical themes: communication is analogous to caring, communication is essential to personalized care, and communication may mitigate or exacerbate the burden of illness.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Patient-clinician communication is a process by which individuals with ovarian cancer may engage in self-advocacy and appraise the extent to which they are seen, respected, and supported by clinicians. Strategies to enhance patient-clinician communication in the ovarian cancer care setting may promote patient perceptions of patient-centered care.

Priorities and preferences of advanced soft tissue sarcoma patients starting palliative chemotherapy: baseline results from the HOLISTIC study

INTRODUCTION

Palliative chemotherapy is the principal treatment of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS); however prognosis is limited (median overall survival 12-19 months). In this setting, patient values and priorities are central to personalised treatment decisions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The prospective HOLISTIC study was conducted in the UK and the Netherlands assessing health-related quality of life in STS patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Participants completed a questionnaire before starting chemotherapy, including attitudes towards quality of life (QoL) versus length of life (LoL), decisional control preferences, and decisional conflict. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and preferences.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients with advanced STS participated (UK: n = 72, the Netherlands: n = 65). Median age was 62 (27-79) years. Preference for extended LoL (n = 66, 48%) was slightly more common than preference for QoL (n = 56, 41%); 12 patients (9%) valued LoL and QoL equally (missing: n = 3). Younger patients (age <40 years) prioritised LoL, whereas two-thirds of older patients (aged ≥65 years) felt that QoL was equally or more important than LoL (P = 0.020). Decisional conflict was most common in patients who prioritised QoL (P = 0.024). Most patients preferred an active (n = 45, 33%) or collaborative (n = 59, 44%) role in treatment decisions. Gender, performance status, and country were significantly associated with preferred role. Concordance between preferred and actual role in chemotherapy decision was high (n = 104, 76%).

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneous priorities and preferences among advanced STS patients support personalised decisions about palliative treatment. Considering individual differences during treatment discussions may enhance communication and optimise patient-centred care.

Rural disparities in surgical care from gynecologic oncologists among Midwestern ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Up to one-third of women with ovarian cancer in the United States do not receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist despite guideline recommendations. We aim to investigate the impact of rurality on receiving surgical care from a specialist, referral to a specialist, and specialist surgery after referral, and the consequences of specialist care.

METHODS

We utilized a retrospective cohort created through an extension of standard cancer surveillance in three Midwestern states. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression was utilized to assess gynecologic oncologist treatment of women 18-89 years old, who were diagnosed with primary, histologically confirmed, malignant ovarian cancer in 2010-2012 in Kansas, Missouri and Iowa by rurality.

RESULTS

Rural women were significantly less likely to receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.58) and referral to a specialist (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.59) compared to urban women. There was no significant difference in specialist surgery after a referral (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Rural women treated surgically by a gynecologic oncologist versus non-specialist were more likely to receive cytoreduction and more complete tumor removal to ≤1 cm.

CONCLUSION

There is a large rural-urban difference in receipt of ovarian cancer surgery from a gynecologic oncologist specialist (versus a non-specialist). Disparities in referral rates contribute to the rural-urban difference. Further research will help define the causes of referral disparities, as well as promising strategies to address them.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Barriers to Accessing Gynecologic Oncologists for Ovarian Cancer Surgical Care

Objective

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend that patients with ovarian cancer receive surgical care from a gynecologic oncologist. However, 15%-30% of patients with ovarian cancer do not receive surgical care from this specialist. The reasons for this remain unknown. We aim at assessing the barriers and attitudes perceived by patients with ovarian cancer who did not receive their primary surgery from a gynecologic oncologist and by diagnosing providers in an exploratory qualitative study.

Materials and Methods

Patients and providers were sampled through the Iowa Cancer Registry. Participants were interviewed by telephone about barriers that patients face receiving surgical care from a specialist. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was completed by two team members.

Findings

Providers (n = 10, 13% participation rate) identified many system-level barriers, including poor provider-to-provider communication, long time-to-surgery wait times, and a limited number of gynecologic oncologists working in their referral range. Patients (n = 16, 38% participation rate) denied system-level barriers; however, no patients reported receiving a referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This, in and of itself, constitutes a system-level barrier. Providers identified many barriers that their patients face, whereas patients failed to identify these barriers and denied facing them. Patients described the shock that they experienced after diagnosis and its limitations on their decision-making process. Both providers and patients agreed that the providers were influential in determining care decisions.

Discussion

There is a divergence in the perceptions of barriers to care between providers and patients. Open discussions are needed about options and clinical guidelines for surgical ovarian cancer care. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate mechanisms to improve provider-to-patient discussions about surgical recommendations.

Life experiences and disease trajectories in women coexisting with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the lived experiences of ovarian cancer survivors amid the disease trajectory and psychosocial adaptation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one women, all of whom were ovarian cancer survivors, were recruited from medical centers in Taiwan. In-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim from audio recordings. The sample size was determined by information saturation during data collection. The steps of data process and analysis were performed using Giorgi's phenomenology.

RESULTS

Three themes and 12 subthemes were extracted: (1) a depressed state, as if facing a fierce enemy: being sentenced to a death penalty like facing an insurmountable challenge; contradictory information and helplessness; turnaround for treatment decision; and facing stigmatization from society; (2) shadow of cancer recurrence: side-effects of cancer treatment; falling into desperation and frustration; worrying about cancer recurrence; and continuing to fight cancer; (3) a change of mindset to move forward: experiencing changes in outlook on life; activating the self-healing process; coexisting with cancer and treating it as a chronic disease; and experiencing physical and mental purification and enhancement.

CONCLUSION

The conventional models caring for patients with ovarian cancer are based on disease and unable to meet their needs because the lengthy rehabilitation journey. Therefore, medical personnel should emphasize patients' medical autonomy and combine professional care and social resources to help patients developing adjustment strategies and establishing support systems in timely manner for body, mind, and soul of these patients.

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.

The convivial and the pastoral in patient-doctor relationships: a multi-country study of patient stories of care, choice and medical authority in cancer diagnostic processes

Experiences of cancer diagnosis are changing in light of both the increasingly technological-clinical diagnostic processes and the socio-political context in which interpersonal relations take place. This has raised questions about how we might understand patient-doctor relationship marked by asymmetries of knowledge and social capital, but that emphasise patients' empowered choices and individualised care. As part of an interview study of 155 participants with bowel or lung cancer across Denmark, England and Sweden, we explored participants' stories of the decisions made during their cancer diagnostic process. By focusing on the intersections of care, choice and medical authority - a convivial pastoral dynamic - we provide a conceptual analysis of the normative ambivalences in people's stories of their cancer diagnosis. We found that participants drew from care, choice and medical authority to emphasise their relationality and interdependence with their doctors in their stories of their diagnosis. Importantly negotiations of an asymmetrical patient-doctor relationship were part of an on-going realisation of the healthcare processes as a human endeavour. We were therefore able to draw attention to the limitations of dichotomising emancipatory-empowerment discourses and argue for a theorisation of the patient-doctor relationship as a contextually bounded and relationally ambivalent humanity.

How do GPs and patients share the responsibility for cancer safety netting follow-up actions? A qualitative interview study of GPs and patients in Oxfordshire, UK

OBJECTIVE

To explore patients' and General Practitioners' (GPs) accounts of how responsibility for follow-up was perceived and shared in their experiences of cancer safety netting occurring within the past 6 months.

DESIGN

In-depth interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed through an abductive process, exploring anticipated and emergent themes. Conceptualisations of 'responsibility' were explored by drawing on a transactional to interdependent continuum drawing from the shared decision-making literature.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

A purposive sample of 25 qualified GPs and 23 adult patients in Oxfordshire, UK.

RESULTS

The transactional sharing approach involves responsibility being passed from GP to patient. Patients expected and were willing to accept responsibility in this way as long as they received clear guidance from their GP and had capacity. In interdependent sharing, GPs principally aimed to reach consensus and share responsibility with the patient by explaining their rationale, uncertainty or by stressing the potential seriousness of the situation. Patients sharing this responsibility could be put at risk if no follow-up or timeframe was suggested, they had inadequate information, were falsely reassured or their concerns were not addressed at re-consultation.

CONCLUSION

GPs and patients exchange and share responsibility using a combination of transactional and interdependent styles, tailoring information based on patient characteristics and each party's level of concern. Clear action plans (written where necessary) at the end of every consultation would help patients decide when to re-consult. Further research should investigate how responsibility is shared within and outside the consultation, within primary care teams and with specialist services.

Patient, physician, and caregiver perspectives on ovarian cancer treatment decision making: lessons from a qualitative pilot study

Background

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic malignancy and the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women living in the USA. Treatment for ovarian cancer that follows the guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is associated with a 33% decrease in disease-specific mortality, yet fewer than 40% of women with ovarian cancer receive guideline-adherent treatment. Little is known about the process by which women with ovarian cancer, their unpaid caregivers, and physicians make decisions about ovarian cancer treatment. We are planning to conduct a population-based study examining the ovarian cancer treatment decision-making process from the perspective of women with ovarian cancer, their caregivers, and physicians using a qualitative approach. Prior to embarking on a large-scale study, we determined it would be beneficial to pilot test our unpaid caregiver recruitment protocol and identify preliminary topics for the main study's interview guide.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study using a qualitative approach. Data were collected via unstructured, individual interviews. Data were analyzed using modified grounded theory methods.

Results

We interviewed six women with ovarian cancer, four unpaid caregivers, and three physicians. The recruitment protocol successfully recruited patient participants but did not allow for direct recruitment of unpaid caregivers, which presented logistical difficulties. The interview guide was adequate to elicit participants' discussion of the major topics of interest; however, the opening statement needed modification to account for physician participants' specialties. Patient and caregiver participants identified three major categories of concepts describing the process of ovarian cancer treatment decision making: (a) choosing a provider, (b) choosing a facility, and (c) choosing a treatment. All three groups of participants addressed the influence of geographic location on treatment decisions, while physicians described encounters with patients declining recommended treatment.

Conclusions

This pilot study met our objectives of testing unpaid caregiver recruitment procedures and identifying topics to include in the interview guide for a planned grounded theory study. Although the thematic results of this study are preliminary, the categories of concepts described by participants provide a framework for the exploration of patient, unpaid caregiver, and physician perspectives of ovarian cancer treatment decision making.

Experience and Expectations of Ovarian Cancer Patients in Australia

Some of the most significant advances in ovarian cancer treatment have been those that result in improvements in progression-free survival (PFS); however there is little research to understand the value that patients place on accessing therapies that result in PFS as a clinical outcome related to survivorship. This study therefore aimed to understand the experience and expectations of women with ovarian cancer in Australia in relation to quality of life (QoL) and treatment options. An online survey collected demographic information and 13 investigator-derived structured interview questions were developed to understand the experience of women with ovarian cancer, their understanding of terminology associated with their condition, and expectations of future treatment. This study demonstrated that ovarian cancer patients equate PFS with being in remission and that patients expect QoL during that time to be good to excellent. Women in this study described excellent QoL as feeling positive and happy and not worrying about cancer, feeling fit and healthy without side effects, and being able to live life as they did before their diagnosis, including the absence of fear of progression or recurrence. It is therefore suggested that there is a positive relationship between PFS and QoL. While it is difficult to quantify QoL and further research is needed, the results of this study suggest that the minimum time that women with ovarian cancer expect in relation to treatments that result in PFS is approximately six months. In the absence of this information, decision-makers are left to make assumptions about the value women place on access to therapeutics that increase PFS, which for this type of cancer is an important aspect of survivorship.

Patient-centered research priorities in ovarian cancer: A systematic review of potential determinants of guideline care

OBJECTIVE

To (a) determine what is known about the individual and contextual factors that may influence whether a woman with ovarian cancer receives guideline care, and (b) identify patient-centered research priorities in ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, and PsycInfo online databases. Eligible articles were published in English, described original research, and either (a) identified factors associated with the receipt of guideline care for ovarian cancer, or (b) described treatment decision making by women with ovarian cancer. Studies were excluded in which women with ovarian cancer did not comprise the entire sample of patient participants. Data were collected in accordance with Garrard's Matrix Method. Study quality was evaluated using the QualSyst tool for evaluating primary research papers. Relevant study findings were imported into NVivo Pro 11 for qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 502 unique citations, of which 78 full-text articles were reviewed. Thirty-three articles met the criteria for inclusion. Study quality was high overall. Factors associated with the receipt of guideline care included race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, insurance type, age, comorbidity, disease stage, tumor characteristics, hospital volume, hospital type, physician volume, and geographic location. Influences on treatment decision making among women with ovarian cancer included the desire to prolong survival, the patient-provider relationship, perceived ability to participate in the treatment decision, values and preferences, information needs, side effects, cost of care, and past experiences with chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for further research that examines ovarian cancer treatment decision making from the perspective of the patient. Priority topics for future research may include the experiences of diverse women receiving treatment for ovarian cancer and the role of shared decision making with providers, referral networks, and practice patterns in the delivery of guideline care.

Adherence of Primary Care Physicians to Evidence-Based Recommendations to Reduce Ovarian Cancer Mortality

Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic cancer. Receipt of treatment from a gynecologic oncologist is an evidence-based recommendation to reduce mortality from the disease. We examined knowledge and application of this evidence-based recommendation in primary care physicians as part of CDC gynecologic cancer awareness campaign efforts and discussed results in the context of CDC National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP). We analyzed primary care physician responses to questions about how often they refer patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer to gynecologic oncologists, and reasons for lack of referral. We also analyzed these physicians' knowledge of tests to help determine whether a gynecologic oncologist is needed for a planned surgery. The survey response rate was 52.2%. A total of 84% of primary care physicians (87% of family/general practitioners, 81% of internists and obstetrician/gynecologists) said they always referred patients to gynecologic oncologists for treatment. Common reasons for not always referring were patient preference or lack of gynecologic oncologists in the practice area. A total of 23% of primary care physicians had heard of the OVA1 test, which helps to determine whether gynecologic oncologist referral is needed. Although referral rates reported here are high, it is not clear whether ovarian cancer patients are actually seeing gynecologic oncologists for care. The NCCCP is undertaking several efforts to assist with this, including education of the recommendation among women and providers and assistance with treatment summaries and patient navigation toward appropriate treatment. Expansion of these efforts to all populations may help improve adherence to recommendations and reduce ovarian cancer mortality.

Oncologists' Perceptions of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer Patients' Preference for Participation in Treatment Decision Making and Strategies for When and How to Involve Patients in This Process

OBJECTIVES

The treatment decision-making (TDM) process in the medical encounter in ovarian cancer (OC) is directed by oncologists. There is little information on oncologists' perceptions of this process. Our objectives were to explore oncologists' perceptions concerning (1) patients' preference for involvement in TDM, (2) factors that affect when to introduce this discussion, and (3) strategies used for engaging women in TDM.

METHODS

We adopted a qualitative descriptive approach. Individual in-person interviews were used to collect data; themes were identified.

RESULTS

Fifteen gynecologic and 5 medical oncologists from Ontario, Canada, participated. We found that oncologists made the assumption that women with recurrent OC were interested in being involved in TDM but rarely reported attempting to validate this assumption. The oncologists timed the initiation of the TDM discussion based on their degree of certainty of recurrent OC and their perception of the patient's readiness to be involved in TDM. Oncologists reported using strategies to engage women such as getting the women to take ownership of the decision, verbalize their priorities, lead the discussions, and giving the opportunity to gather information.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists need to listen to each patient rather than make assumptions about the person based on her disease.

Barriers to shared decisions in the most serious of cancers: a qualitative study of patients with pancreatic cancer treated in the UK

BACKGROUND

Less than 20% of patients with pancreatic cancer present with localized, potentially curable tumours. Even when potentially curative surgery is possible, mortality is high. Only 20-25% of patients who have had resected ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head survive 5 years. Other treatments include chemotherapy, radiotherapy and palliative care.

AIM

To explore patients' perceptions of barriers to shared decision making in a condition in which shared decision making might be difficult.

METHOD

Thematic analysis of narrative interviews with 32 people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the UK; interviews with a social scientist, usually in people's homes.

RESULTS

We found that barriers to shared decisions include the idea that investigations are conducted to determine whether the patient qualifies for surgery, rather than to establish whether surgery is an option to consider; a sense of being pressured to accept treatment, a sense that in a life-threatening situation, there are no 'real options'; and the confusion that can be caused when clinical opinions differ.

CONCLUSION

We need to ask how patients can be expected to engage in an informed, shared decision if they are made to feel that they are one of the 'winners' if they qualify for surgery. When each treatment decision might have serious consequences for a patient's remaining months, we suggest that there is a particularly strong imperative to make sure that the patient is not subject to other people's assumptions about what is best for them and that patients are offered the opportunity to share in decisions.

Patients’ perspectives on person-centred participation in healthcare

The aim of this article was to critically analyse the concept of person-centred participation in healthcare from patients’ perspectives through a review of qualitative research findings. In accordance with the integrative review method of Broom, data were retrieved from databases, but 60 studies were finally included in the study. The diverse attributes of person-centred participation in healthcare were identified and contrasted with participation that was not person-centred and analysed through framework analysis. Person-centred participation in healthcare was found to be based on patients’ experiences, values, preferences and needs in which respect and equality were central. It manifested itself via three intertwined phases: the human-connection phase, the phase of information processing and the action phase. The results challenge in many aspects earlier concept analyses of patient participation in addition to illuminating patient participation that is not positively valued by patients.

One step at a time: self-management and transitions among women with ovarian cancer

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe experiences of self-management and transitioning among women with ovarian cancer.

RESEARCH APPROACH

Interpretive description.

SETTING

Participants' homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of 10 women with ovarian cancer.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

Individual interviews about women's self-management and transition experiences.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Self-management, transitions, and ovarian cancer.

FINDINGS

Participants self-managed to increase their sense of control and to self-advocate. They managed their care one step at a time to prevent becoming overwhelmed. Common transitions were diagnosis, surgery and recovery, starting chemotherapy, managing symptoms, and recurrence. Transitions were challenging, even if previously experienced, and influenced the ability and willingness of women to self-manage. Barriers and facilitators to self-management were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach to self-management of one step at a time is somewhat illusory, as women face multiple transitions simultaneously. The short trajectory of ovarian cancer leaves little time between transitions and an awareness of mortality. Women are forced to confront goals of care quickly, which may affect their ability to self-manage.

INTERPRETATION

Women with ovarian cancer need clinical and social support to prioritize and manage transitions. Introducing palliative care shortly after diagnosis could facilitate women's anticipation of and adjustment to transitions.

Communicating health decisions: an analysis of messages posted to online prostate cancer forums

BACKGROUND

Experiential websites such as message forums and blogs allow Prostate Cancer (PCa) patients to communicate their health decisions to peers. The issues surrounding this form of indirect involvement in public health are little understood.

OBJECTIVE

This paper explores the types of decision-making processes that people are exposed to on PCa online message boards. The kinds of treatment choices patients are making and the reports of their decision-making processes to peers through an online environment are examined in the context of the Heuristic Systematic Model.

METHOD

Messages about treatment decision making were collected from four PCa websites. In total, 137 messages were selected from blogs and online forums and their decision-making processes coded.

RESULTS

Men looking online for information about treatment options for PCa are exposed to a range of decision-making processes. Just under half (49.6%) of the messages reported non-systematic decision processes, with deferral to the doctor and proof of cancer removal being the most common. For systematic processing (36.5%), messages most commonly considered treatment outcomes and side-effects. Processes did not vary between the blogs and online forums.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Compared to previous studies far fewer messages reported non-systematic decision processes and only a small number of messages reflected lay beliefs or misbeliefs about PCa treatment. Implications for men and their clinicians of seeking health information online are discussed.

Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Empirical literature on patient decision role preferences regarding treatment and screening was reviewed to summarize patients' role preferences across measures, time and patient population.

METHODS

Five databases were searched from January 1980 to December 2007 (1980-2007 Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsychInfo, Web of Science and PubMed (2005-2007)). Eligible studies measured patient decision role preferences, described measures, presented findings as percentages or mean scores and were published in English from any country. Studies were compared by patient population, time of publication, and measure.

RESULTS

115 studies were eligible. The majority of patients preferred sharing decisions with physicians in 63% of the studies. A time trend appeared. The majority of respondents preferred sharing decision roles in 71% of the studies from 2000 and later, compared to 50% of studies before 2000. Measures themselves, in addition to patient population, influenced the preferred decision roles reported.

CONCLUSION

Findings appear to vary with the measure of preferred decision making used, time of the publication and characteristics of the population.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The role preference measure itself must be considered when interpreting patient responses to a measure or question about a patient's preference for decision roles.

Decision support needs of patients choosing between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty for advanced medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee

Patients with isolated medial knee osteoarthritis are often candidates for both unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty and must choose between these 2 options. We interviewed 20 such patients to describe their decision support needs and 14 knee arthroplasty surgeons to describe their requirements in supporting patients' decision making. Patients and surgeons both desired active patient participation in the decision. Of 14 surgeons, 13 identified a knowledgeable patient as the most important factor in facilitating decision making, but many worried about confusing patients from information overload. Patients, on the other hand, demonstrated poor knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of each surgical option, and 17 of 20 desired supplemental educational resources. Thus, most patients choosing between unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty would appreciate and benefit from a decision support intervention.

Exploring patients' experience of receiving information about cancer: a comparison of interview and questionnaire methods of data collection

Patient information is widely regarded both as a resource and an entitlement: a means of 'empowering' patients to behave as 'consumers' of health care. Patient 'satisfaction' has come to be regarded as an important outcome of care. This article presents qualitative interview data regarding the experience of patient information provision and the results of a self-completed Information Satisfaction Questionnaire (ISQ) among patients and relatives affected by cancer. It considers the implications of the differences between these for service evaluation and current policy implementation promoting patients as informed and expert consumers of health care. The study findings contribute to growing evidence that the high rate of patients' expressed satisfaction with different aspects of service provision as indicated by structured questionnaire responses is largely an artefact of the method of data collection. Accounts of negative experiences were common, but did not translate into expressed criticism or overt dissatisfaction. It is important that the limitations of such surveys are contextualized in relation to qualitative findings such as those of the present study. Especially in the face of serious and life-threatening illness, professional constructs such as 'information delivery', 'satisfaction' and 'shared decision making' have little resonance for many patients, who prefer to trust in professional expertise and to eschew the acquisition of specialist knowledge and active involvement in decisions about health care.

"I like to be an informed person but..." negotiating responsibility for treatment decisions in cancer care

Social expectations surrounding sickness have undergone a transformation in Western welfare states. Emerging discourses about patients' roles and responsibilities do not however always map neatly onto patients' actions, experiences or desires. This paper emerges from a study in Ontario, Canada. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 5 women diagnosed with breast cancer we explore the activity and effort prompted for patients by the routine professional practice of outlining treatment options and encouraging patients to choose between them. We highlight research participants' complex responses to their responsibility for treatment decisions: their accepting, deflecting and reframing and their active negotiation of responsibility with professionals. The literature on treatment decision making typically characterizes people who resist taking an active role as overwhelmed, misinformed about the nature of treatment decisions, or more generally lacking capacity to participate. In this paper we suggest that patients' expressions of ambivalence about making treatment choices can be understood otherwise: as efforts to recast the identities and positions they and their physicians are assigned in the organization of cancer care. We also begin to map key features of this organization, particularly discourses of patient empowerment, and evidence-based medicine.

Converting the informed consent from a perfunctory process to an evidence-based foundation for patient decision making

BACKGROUND

Standard consent forms result in highly variable communication between patients and physicians. To enhance the consent process and facilitate shared decision making, we developed a World Wide Web-based program, PREDICT (Patient Refined Expectations for Deciding Invasive Cardiac Treatments), to systematically embed patient-specific estimates of death, bleeding, and restenosis into individualized percutaneous coronary intervention informed consent documents. We then compared patients' experiences with informed consent before and after implementation of PREDICT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between August 2006 and May 2007, patients undergoing nonemergent cardiac catheterization who received the original consent form (n=142) were interviewed and compared with those who received the PREDICT consent form (n=193). Hierarchical modified Poisson regression models were used to adjust for clustering of patients within physicians. Compared with the original consent group, those in the PREDICT group reported higher rates of reading the consent form (72% versus 44%, relative risk [RR] 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24 to 2.16), increased perception of shared decision making (67% versus 45%, RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.22), and decreased anxiety (35% versus 55%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91). Although there were no differences between groups in patients' ability to name complications of percutaneous coronary intervention, among patients who identified either death or bleeding as a potential complication, more patients in the PREDICT group recalled being informed of their estimated risk of that complication (death: 85% versus 62%, RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.82; bleeding: 92% versus 71%, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56).

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary, single-center experience, individualized consent forms with patient-specific risks were associated with improved participation in the consent process, reduced anxiety, and better risk recall. PREDICT is one potential strategy for improving the current practice of obtaining informed consent for percutaneous coronary intervention.

Implementing an innovative consent form: the PREDICT experience

BACKGROUND

In the setting of coronary angiography, generic consent forms permit highly variable communication between patients and physicians. Even with the existence of multiple risk models, clinicians have been unable to readily access them and thus provide patients with vague estimations regarding risks of the procedure.

METHODS

We created a web-based vehicle, PREDICT, for embedding patient-specific estimates of risk from validated multivariable models into individualized consent documents at the point-of-care. Beginning August 2006, outpatients undergoing coronary angiography at the Mid America Heart Institute received individualized consent documents generated by PREDICT. In February 2007 this approach was expanded to all patients undergoing coronary angiography within the four Kansas City hospitals of the Saint Luke's Health System. Qualitative research methods were used to identify the implementation challenges and successes with incorporating PREDICT-enhanced consent documents into routine clinical care from multiple perspectives: administration, information systems, nurses, physicians, and patients.

RESULTS

Most clinicians found usefulness in the tool (providing clarity and educational value for patients) and satisfaction with the altered processes of care, although a few cardiologists cited delayed patient flow and excessive patient questions. The responses from administration and patients were uniformly positive. The key barrier was related to informatics.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary experience suggests that successful change in clinical processes and organizational culture can be accomplished through multidisciplinary collaboration. A randomized trial of PREDICT consent, leveraging the accumulated knowledge from this first experience, is needed to further evaluate its impact on medical decision-making, patient compliance, and clinical outcomes.

Treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: patients' attitudes and acceptability

BACKGROUND

Irritable Bowel Syndrome, a highly prevalent chronic disorder, places significant burden on the health service and the individual. Symptomatic distress and reduced quality of life are compounded by few efficacious treatments available. As researchers continue to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of alternative therapies, it would be useful to gain a patient-perspective of treatment acceptability and identify patient's attitudes towards those modalities considered not acceptable.

METHODS

Six hundred and forty-five participants identified from an earlier IBS-prevalence study received a postal questionnaire to evaluate preferences and acceptability of nine forms of treatment. Proportions accepting each form of treatment were calculated and thematic analysis of qualitative data undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of 256 (39.7%) of 645 potential respondents completed the questionnaire (mean age 55.9 years, 73% female). Tablets were most acceptable (84%), followed by lifestyle changes (diet (82%), yoga (77%)). Acupuncture (59%) and suppositories (57%) were less acceptable. When explaining lack of acceptability, patient views fell into four broad categories: dislike treatment modality, do not perceive benefit, general barriers and insufficient knowledge. Scepticism, lack of scientific rationale and fear of CAM were mentioned, although others expressed a dislike of conventional medical treatments. Past experiences, age and health concerns, and need for proof of efficacy were reported.

CONCLUSION

Most patients were willing to accept various forms of treatment. However, the reservations expressed by this patient-population must be recognised with particular focus directed towards allaying fears and misconceptions, seeking further evidence base for certain therapies and incorporating physician support and advice.

How patients' experiences contribute to decision making: illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness)

AIM

To describe how people use their and other people's experiences ('experiential evidence') in making health care decisions.

BACKGROUND

People faced with health decisions may employ not only clinical evidence and advice, but also their own previous experiences and the experiences of others who have faced similar decisions. Professionals have taken little notice of people's use of such experiential evidence and its importance in practice; acknowledging it would improve communication with patients.

METHODS

The data come from the DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness) project, which involves rigorous analysis of narrative interviews of people with particular conditions, chosen to represent the widest practicable range of experiences of each condition. Each collection consists of 40-50 interviews.

RESULTS

The analyses of people's experiences are summarized for patients and professionals on a website (http://www.dipex.org) and illustrated by clips (video, audio or written) from the interviews. We draw on the qualitative research conducted for DIPEx to consider some of the different ways that people integrate experiential information when they face decisions about antenatal screening, childhood immunization and treatment for cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Other patients' experiences are an important part of the evidence that people use when making decisions about health care. People are naturally drawn to other people's stories, which add salience to medical information and make facts palatable and memorable. Patients' experiences are not an alternative to the evidence base - they are part of it; to dismiss them as 'anecdotes' is a serious misunderstanding. There are established methods, grounded in social science traditions, which can be used to research and report patients' experiences. Health professionals, as well as patients, need to consider and value this experiential evidence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Managers and clinicians can help patients by guiding them to information resources, such as DIPEx, that present evidence-based health information through patients' experiences.