Barriers of and strategies for shared decision-making implementation in the care of metastatic breast cancer: A qualitative study among patients and healthcare professionals in an Asian country

Factors Impacting on Patient-Centered Communication Skills and Their Opportunities to Be Involved in Decision-making From the Perspective of Patients With Cancer, Informal Caregivers, and/or Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Active participation of cancer patients and their caregivers in decision-making, along with high-quality communication, is crucial in patient-centered cancer management. Although numerous factors affecting patients' communication and decision-making involvement have been identified, it is still unclear which ones are the most prevalent and critical.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that contribute to high-quality patient-centered communication and decision-making participation from the perspectives of cancer patients, informal caregivers, and/or healthcare professionals.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, using 9 databases to retrieve primary research articles published from 2010 to February 17, 2023, updated on December 13, 2023. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (version 18). The socioecological model of communication was utilized as analytical framework for summarizing the results.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included. The most frequently reported factors were predominantly articulated at the individual, interpersonal, and societal levels. Although the patients' lack of knowledge and limited language proficiency were the frequent patient-level barriers, the perceived lack of knowledge and lack of training of professionals were the crucial and current professional-level barriers, as reported in studies published in 2016 onward. To circumvent these factors, it is critical to enhance professionals' knowledge, communication skills, and patient relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing barriers and facilitators could help in the development of strategies to overcome these barriers and enhance patient participation in clinical communication.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

The findings could guide the development of programs to enhance patient-professional communication skills. Further cross-cultural studies are needed to understand culture's impact on communication effectiveness and decision-making participation.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Implications of Agile Values in Software Engineering for Agility in Breast Cancer Treatment: Protocol for a Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer treatment has been described as a dynamic and patient-centered approach that emphasizes adaptability and flexibility throughout the treatment process. Breast cancer is complex, with varying subtypes and stages, making it important to tailor treatment plans to each patient's unique circumstances. Breast cancer treatment delivery relies on a multidisciplinary team of health care professionals who collaborate to provide personalized care and quick adaptation to changing conditions to optimize outcomes while minimizing side effects and maintaining the patient's quality of life. However, agility in breast cancer treatment has not been defined according to common agile values and described in language comprehensible to breast cancer professionals. In the rapidly evolving landscape of breast cancer treatment, the incorporation of agile values from software engineering promises to enhance patient care.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to propose agile values for breast cancer treatment adopted and adapted from software engineering. We also aim to validate how these values conform to the concept of agility in the breast cancer context through referencing past work.

METHODS

We applied a structured research methodology to identify and validate 4 agile values for breast cancer treatment. In the elicitation phase, through 2 interviews, we identified 4 agile values and described them in language that resonates with breast cancer treatment professionals. The values were then validated by a domain expert and discussed in the context of supporting work from the literature. Final validation entailed a domain expert conducting a walkthrough of the 4 identified agile values to adjust them as per the reported literature.

RESULTS

Four agile values were identified for breast cancer treatment, and among them, we validated 3 that conformed to the concept of agility. The fourth value, documentation and the quality of documentation, is vital for breast cancer treatment planning and management. This does not conform to agility. However, its nonagility is vital for the agility of the other values. None of the identified agile values were validated as partially conforming to the concept of agility.

CONCLUSIONS

This work makes a novel contribution to knowledge in identifying the first set of agile values in breast cancer treatment through multidisciplinary research. Three of these values were evaluated as conforming to the concept of agility, and although 1 value did not meet the concept of agility, it enhanced the agility of the other values. It is anticipated that these 4 agile values can drive oncology practice, strategies, policies, protocols, and procedures to enhance delivery of care. Moreover, the identified values contribute to identifying quality assurance and control practices to assess the concept of agility in oncology practice and breast cancer treatment and adjust corresponding actions. We conclude that breast cancer treatment agile values are not limited to 4.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/53124.