Treatment decision making in early-stage breast cancer: should surgeons match patients' desired level of involvement?

Artificial-Intelligence Cloud-Based Platform to Support Shared Decision-Making in the Locoregional Treatment of Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Multidimensional Evaluation Embedded in the CINDERELLA Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) plays a crucial role in breast cancer care by empowering patients and reducing decision regret. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are valuable tools for facilitating SDM, now available in digital and artificial intelligence (AI)-powered formats to offer increasingly personalized contents. The ongoing CINDERELLA clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05196269) evaluates an innovative AI cloud-based approach using a web platform and a mobile application (CINDERELLA APProach) versus the conventional approach to support SDM in breast cancer patients undergoing locoregional treatment. This protocol outlines a trial-based multidimensional evaluation, encompassing economic, financial, implementability, and environmental considerations associated with the CINDERELLA APProach.

METHODS

A within-trial cost-consequence and cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective will be performed using patient-level data on outcomes and resource use. The latter will be valued in monetary terms using country-specific unit costs or patient valuations. A budget impact analysis will be performed over 1 and 5 years from the budget holder perspectives. The CINDERELLA APProach implementability will be assessed through an evaluation of its usability, acceptability, organizational impact, and overall feasibility. The environmental impact will be quantitatively assessed across several dimensions, such as quantity, appropriateness, and emissions, supplemented by qualitative insights. Overall, data for the evaluation will be gathered from patient questionnaires, interviews with patients and managers, focus groups with healthcare professionals, and app electronic data.

DISCUSSION

A thorough understanding of the broad consequences of the CINDERELLA APProach may foster its successful translation into real-world settings, hopefully benefiting breast cancer patients and clinical practice.

Adaptation and Implementation of Pictorial Conversation Aids for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction: A Quality Improvement Study

Purpose

After a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer, women of lower socioeconomic position (SEP) report worse outcomes than women of higher SEP. A pictorial conversation aid was shown to improve decision outcomes in controlled contexts. No such intervention existed in France. In Phase 1, our aim was to adapt, for use in France, two pictorial conversation aids for breast cancer surgery and reconstruction. In Phase 2, our aim was to implement them in a regional cancer center serving a diverse population.

Patients and Methods

In phase 1, we used iterative qualitative methods to adapt the conversation aids with a convenience sample of patients and health professionals. In phase 2, we tested their implementation using PDSA cycles with volunteer surgeons.

Results

In phase 1, we interviewed 10 health professionals and 5 patients to reach thematic data saturation. They found the conversation aids usable and very acceptable (especially patients) and suggested small changes to further simplify the layout and content (including a glossary). In phase 2, three surgeons started the first PDSA cycle, for 4 weeks. Only one additional surgeon agreed to take part in the second cycle. The third cycle was cancelled since no new surgeon agreed to take part. Time was a barrier for 2 out of 4 surgeons, potentially explaining the difficulty recruiting for the third cycle. The evaluation was otherwise positive. The surgeons found the conversation aids very useful during their consultations and all intended to continue using them in the future.

Conclusion

It was possible to adapt, for use in France, pictorial conversation aids proven to be effective elsewhere. While the adapted conversation aids were deemed usable by health professionals and very acceptable to patients, their implementation using PDSA cycles proved slow.

Decisional conflict and its determinants among patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy or targeted therapy: a cross-sectional study

Decisional conflict might occur during shared decision-making (SDM) because immunotherapy is a rather novel treatment option for patients with cancer. To explore the prevalence and severity of physical and psychological symptoms and the effort invested in SDM in relation to decisional conflict among patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy or targeted therapy. This was a cross-sectional survey study. The SURE version of the Decisional Conflict Scale was used to screen cancer patients' decisional conflict status. Demographic or clinical characteristics, physical symptoms and psychological distress; efforts invested in the SDM process were also assessed as potential factors related to decisional conflict. One hundred seventeen patients surveyed, the prevalence of fatigue (79.5%), sleep disturbance (78.6%), poor appetite (67.5%), and pain (58.1%) symptoms were high and the severity was at moderate levels. The prevalence of pruritus (40.2%), rash (34.2%), dry skin (41.9%), and diarrhea (17.1%) symptoms were low and the severity was at mild levels. 65.8% of patients reported uncertainty, with mild to moderate levels. Furthermore, 97.4% of the patients made some effort in SDM, and the effort level was moderate (mean: 5.56 ± 2.02). 64.1% of patients were certain that immunotherapy was the best option. Age, uncertainty, and effort in the SDM process were major factors related to decisional conflict. We observed that older patients (age: ≥ 65) and those with higher uncertainty levels and less effort in SDM reported higher levels of decisional conflict. Future studies should explore older patients' decisional related needs of immunotherapy. Interventions should be designed to reduce the uncertainty experienced by patients with cancer and enhance their understanding of immunotherapy to enable them to take more effort in the SDM process.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).

METHODS

We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS.

DISCUSSION

The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Intervention to reduce age bias in medical students' decision making for the treatment of older women with breast cancer: A novel approach to bias training

Objectives: Despite NICE guidelines to 'treat people with invasive breast cancer, irrespective of age, with surgery and appropriate systemic therapy, rather than endocrine therapy alone', older patients receive differential treatment and experience worse outcomes. Research has evidenced the prevalence of ageism and identified the role of implicit bias in reflecting and potentially perpetuating disparities across society, including in healthcare. Yet age bias has rarely been considered as an explanatory factor in poorer outcomes for older breast cancer patients nor, consequentially, has removing age bias been considered as an approach to improving outcomes. Many organizations carry out bias training with the aim of reducing negative impacts from biased decision making, yet the few evaluations of these interventions have mostly seen small or negative effects. This study explores whether a novel intervention to address age bias leads to better quality decision making for the treatment of older women with breast cancer.Methods: An online study compared medical students' treatment recommendations for older breast cancer patients and the reasoning for their decision making before and after a novel bias training intervention. Thirty-one medical students participated in the study.Results: The results show that the bias training intervention led medical students to make better quality decisions for older breast cancer patients. The quality of decision making was measured by decreases in age-based decision making and increased efforts to include patients in decision making. These results suggest there is value in exploring whether if anti-bias training interventions could usefully be applied in other areas of practice where older patients experience poorer outcomes.Conclusions: This study evidences that bias training improves the quality of decision making by medical students in respect of older breast cancer patients. The study findings show promise that this novel approach to bias training might usefully be applied to all medical practitioners making treatment recommendations for older patients.

The complexity of physician-patient communication and its impact in non-medical fields. A surgical oncology approach

Physician-patient communication is essential for determining high-quality healthcare, as this may influence patients' satisfaction with care, their understanding of medical information, coping skills specific to a disease, and raise treatment adherence. In the field of surgical oncology, most healthcare communication develops around the disease, treatment, and healthcare planning, overlooking psychological functioning and patients' well-being. To address this issue and avoid unmet patient needs, patient-centered communication requires specific skills designed to enable physicians to identify, acknowledge and respond to patients' thoughts and feelings over an extended period. The aim of this study was to investigate the integration of patient-physician communication in a non-medical system made up of patient-physician communication, perceived healthcare quality, and the image of a physician or a healthcare organization with a specific focus on surgical oncology. The sample comprised 157 breast cancer patients who reported highly satisfactory levels of perceived communication skills of physicians and the quality of services. Moreover, patients expressed their willingness to recommend these physicians to their family and friends, which further contributes to the positive image of physicians. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize the ongoing need for continuous attention to the communication skills of surgical oncologists, as each cancer patient's experience is unique and necessitates a personalized form of interaction.

Factors that influence the management recommendations breast surgeons provide to women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes

Pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes, such as ATM and CHEK2, confer a two- to five-fold increased lifetime risk for breast cancer. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has guidelines for breast surgeons to utilize when counseling women with pathogenic variants in these genes; however, previous studies indicate that other factors impact breast surgeons' recommendations to patients. This study investigated factors influencing management recommendations presented by breast surgeons to women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with breast surgeons practicing in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. A total of 15 breast surgeons from eight different hospitals participated in five focus groups and three individual interviews. Participants discussed factors they consider when making management recommendations for risk reduction in women with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. Participants provided risk management recommendations for given scenarios. Patient motivation/opinion, family history, patient current health status, patient personal preference, and patient anxiety level were among the most common factors mentioned. It appeared that how these factors are valued and applied in practice varies. There was no consensus among breast surgeons on which risk-reducing management options they would recommend in each scenario. There are many factors breast surgeons take into consideration when making recommendations for this patient population. This information could inform future research on decision making around treatment for individuals with pathogenic variants in moderate penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Treatment Decision-Making in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Perceptions of Locus of Control Among Patient, Caregiver, and Physician Triads

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatments for metastatic prostate cancer have similar efficacy, leaving patients with complicated treatment choices. Shared decision-making can facilitate difficult treatment decisions, but the extent to which this is used for metastatic prostate cancer is unknown. We assessed patient, caregiver, and physician perceptions of decision locus of control (shared decision-making vs physician- or patient-directed decisions) and the degree of agreement between groups.

METHODS

Triads of patients, caregivers, and physicians completed surveys of decision-making practices after a clinic visit in which a decision occurred. To evaluate the degree of agreement for decision locus of control, we used the quadratic-weighted kappa coefficient (κ). We used relative frequencies to evaluate which knowledge learned and treatment factors were most strongly endorsed by patients as informing and influencing their treatment decision-making, respectively.

RESULTS

Fifty triads participated, with median patient age of 72 years. A majority of patients, caregivers, and physicians reported shared decision-making (66%, 56%, and 52%, respectively). Patients and physicians demonstrated minimal agreement about decision locus of control (44%, κ=0.35 [SD = 0.52]), but caregiver reports were not statistically significantly associated with physician and patient reports (38%, κ=0.23, [SD = 0.28]), p=0.055; 44%, κ=0.34 [SD = 1.98], p=0.14). Treatment efficacy was the most common patient-reported factor influencing treatment decisions (44%).

CONCLUSION

This study characterized metastatic prostate cancer patients', caregivers', and physicians' experiences and communication preferences for treatment decision-making. Patients and physicians had greater agreement in decision locus of control compared with caregivers, yet patient-physician agreement was minimal. Metastatic prostate cancer patients report being influenced by information about treatment efficacy and clear next steps, and a desire for patient-friendly language and an invitation to be as involved in decision making at their preferred level. Emphasizing these may increase agreement in decision locus of control between all participants in the decision-making process.

Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of decision aids in the treatment, prevention and screening of breast cancer patients.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The review protocol was registered in the CRD Prospero database(CRD42020173028). A literature search was carried out in five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of science data in January 2020. We used The Cochrane risk bias assessment tool to evaluate the literature quality of included trials and the Review Manager 5.2 software to analyse data.

RESULTS

We included 22 studies. Compared with the conventional methods, decision aids reduced treatment decision conflicts and had no significant effect on screening decision conflicts (WMD=-2.25, 95% CI = - 2.64,-1.87, p < .0001; WMD=-1.37, 95% CI = - 3.57,0.83, p = .22). Three were no statistical differences in participants' anxiety, decision regret, knowledge, informed choice and decision-making satisfaction between the two groups.

Evaluation of a Tool that Enables Cancer Patients to Participate in the Decision-Making Process during Treatment Selection

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in decisions related to their treatment is strongly recommended. This study was conducted to develop and evaluate a support tool that can help patients make decisions related to their own treatment.

METHODS

Twenty cancer patients who were hospitalized for first-line treatment were enrolled. Before hospitalization, a 'Check sheet on treatment selection', which contained 14 questions, was distributed to patients and/or their families. After hospitalization, the attending physician explained the treatment while referring to the written check sheet. At discharge, patients' responses to the 'Questionnaire on check sheet and treatment selection' were collected to evaluate the utility of the check sheet. Finally, the 'Questionnaire of the check sheet' was handed to the attending physician to evaluate.

RESULTS

Of the fourteen patients who responded to the questionnaire, all indicated that the check sheets were helpful for decision-making and that using the sheets empowered them to ask their doctors questions. Only one person felt uncomfortable with compiling the check sheet. Physicians stated that the check sheet facilitated patient decision-making and improved communication with patients. However, some felt that this activity increased the administrative burden of medical professionals.

CONCLUSION

Almost all patients stated that the present check sheet was useful as a decision support tool and facilitated communication between doctors and patients. Before incorporation into general clinical practice, this increased benefit should be weighed against the potential extra administrative workload imposed on clinicians.

"Will It Affect Our Chances of Having Children?" and Feeling "Like a Ticking Bomb" -The Fertility Concerns and Fears of Cancer Progression and Recurrence in Cancer Treatment Decision-Making Among Young Women Diagnosed With Gynaecological or Breast Cancer

Objective: Cancer treatment decision making process is particularly fraught with challenges for young women because the treatment can affect their reproductive potential. Among many factors affecting the process, fears of cancer progression and recurrence can also be important psychological factors. Our aim is to apply Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model to explore experiences of treatment decision-making women of reproductive age who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer and the influence of fertility issues and fears of cancer progression and recurrence.

Method: We conducted telephone interviews with 24 women who were diagnosed with gynaecological or breast cancer aged 18–45, who finished active treatment within 5 years prior to study enrolment and had no known evidence of cancer recurrence at the time of participation. They were recruited from three NHS oncology clinics in Scotland and online outlets of cancer charities and support organisations. We analysed the data using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method as it allows for both inductive and deductive analyses.

Results: We identified five main themes pertaining to treatment-related decision-making experiences and fertility issues and fear of progression and recurrence: Becoming aware of infertility as a potential consequence of cancer treatment; Balancing-prioritising cancer and fertility; Decisions about treatments; Evaluation of treatment decisions; and The consequences of treatments. Sub-themes have also been reported. Different factors such as whether the cancer is breast or gynaecological, physicians' willingness of discussing fertility, influence of others in decision-making, childbearing and relationship status as well as fear of cancer recurrence emerged as important.

Conclusion: The importance of physicians directly addressing fertility preservation in the process of treatment decision-making and not treating it as an “add-on” was evident. Satisfaction with treatment decisions depended on both the quality of the process of decision making and its outcome. Fear of recurrence was present in different parts of the adaptation process from illness perceptions to post-treatment evaluation of decisions. Both Common-Sense Model and shared decision-making model were helpful in understanding and explaining young women's experience of treatment decision-making and fertility concerns.

What matters most: Randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery conversation aids across socioeconomic strata

Background

Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with early‐stage breast cancer are more likely to report poorer physician‐patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery, lower involvement in decision making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. The objective of this study was to understand how to support women across socioeconomic strata in making breast cancer surgery choices.

Methods

We conducted a 3‐arm (Option Grid, Picture Option Grid, and usual care), multisite, randomized controlled superiority trial with surgeon‐level randomization. The Option Grid (text only) and Picture Option Grid (pictures plus text) conversation aids were evidence‐based summaries of available breast cancer surgery options on paper. Decision quality (primary outcome), treatment choice, treatment intention, shared decision making (SDM), anxiety, quality of life, decision regret, and coordination of care were measured from T0 (pre‐consultation) to T5 (1‐year after surgery.

Results

Sixteen surgeons saw 571 of 622 consented patients. Patients in the Picture Option Grid arm (n = 248) had higher knowledge (immediately after the visit [T2] and 1 week after surgery or within 2 weeks of the first postoperative visit [T3]), an improved decision process (T2 and T3), lower decision regret (T3), and more SDM (observed and self‐reported) compared to usual care (n = 257). Patients in the Option Grid arm (n = 66) had higher decision process scores (T2 and T3), better coordination of care (12 weeks after surgery or within 2 weeks of the second postoperative visit [T4]), and more observed SDM (during the surgical visit [T1]) compared to usual care arm. Subgroup analyses suggested that the Picture Option Grid had more impact among women of lower SES and health literacy. Neither intervention affected concordance, treatment choice, or anxiety.

Conclusions

Paper‐based conversation aids improved key outcomes over usual care. The Picture Option Grid had more impact among disadvantaged patients.

Lay Summary

The objective of this study was to understand how to help women with lower incomes or less formal education to make breast cancer surgery choices.

Compared with usual care, a conversation aid with pictures and text led to higher knowledge. It improved the decision process and shared decision making (SDM) and lowered decision regret. A text‐only conversation aid led to an improved decision process, more coordinated care, and higher SDM compared to usual care. The conversation aid with pictures was more helpful for women with lower income or less formal education.

Conversation aids with pictures and text helped women make better breast cancer surgery choices.

A paper‐based pictorial conversation aid (pictures plus text) is beneficial to all patients with early‐stage breast cancer and particularly to disadvantaged patients. Between‐surgeon variation suggests that the maximal impact of such interventions requires standardized physician training combined with these interventions.

Patient and proxy reports regarding the experience of treatment decision-making in cancer care

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making, including the elicitation of patient preferences regarding treatment decisions, is considered part of high-quality cancer care. However, patients may not be able to self-report due to illness, and therefore proxy reports may be used. We sought to determine the difference between proxy and patient reports about patient decisions and preferences among patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy using data from a large, population-based survey of patients with incident lung or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Of 3573 patients who received or were scheduled for chemotherapy, 3108 self-reported and 465 had proxies reporting on their behalf about preferred and actual decision roles regarding this treatment. Preferred and actual decision roles were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale, and categorized as shared, patient-controlled, or doctor-controlled. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient and proxy responses and whether preferences were met. The models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables and patient/proxy-reported health status.

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent of all respondents reported actual roles in decisions that matched their preferred roles (role attainment). Proxies and patients were similarly likely to report role attainment (65% vs 63%). In adjusted analyses, proxies were more likely report role attainment (OR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.02-1.59), but this difference was smaller if health variables were excluded from the model (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.92-1.41).

CONCLUSION

Most patients' preferences for treatment participation were met. Surveys from proxies appear to yield small differences on the reports of attainment of preferred treatment decision-making roles in cancer care vs surveys from 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.

What are the appropriate thresholds for High Quality Performance Indicators for breast surgery in Australia and New Zealand?

Aim

To evaluate BreastSurgANZ members’ compliance at various threshold rates for 4 evaluable High-Quality Performance Indicators (HQPIs) introduced to improve patient care. To benchmark global best practice to assist in determining the eventual threshold standards.

Method

BreastSurgANZ Quality Audit data 2012–2016 & 2018 was used to determine rates of attainment through a range of thresholds for 4 HQPI’s. Rates were assessed for different volume surgeons and comparison made to international standards.

Results

1.3761 patients needing mastectomy for in situ disease, if the threshold rate for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) was ≥ 40% then 30% of all members and 78% of very high-volume surgeons achieved that rate, which is comparable to international recommendations.

2.26,007 patients requiring mastectomy, if the threshold rate for IBR was ≥ 20% then 28% of all surgeons and 78% very high-volume surgeons met the standard. This is below most international recommendations.

3. For 31,698 invasive tumours ≤ 2 cm, if the threshold rate for breast conservation was ≥ 70% then 64% of all surgeons met the standard; 70% is comparable internationally.

4.1382 women =<50 years if the threshold rate for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was set at ≥ 15% then 36% of surgeons complied; 15% is below most international recommendations.

Conclusions

Even at these modest thresholds there are low levels of achievement by BreastSurgANZ members with high volume surgeons more likely to comply. These thresholds are either comparable or lower than globally accepted standards. Members should strive to meet, even exceed these important goals as they are a metric of improved patient care.

•

High quality performance indicators are important for driving improvements in care.

•

Our threshold standards for IBR for insitu disease are comparable internationally.

•

Threshold indicators for invasive breast cancer are well below international standards.

•

Members are achieving internationally comparable rates of breast conservation.

•

Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for women <50yrs is below international standards.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Prostate Cancer Survivors' Perceived Engagement in Treatment Decision-Making

OBJECTIVE

We examined prostate cancer patients' perceived engagement in treatment decision-making and associated factors by race/ethnicity in a multiethnic sample.

METHOD

We identified patients through the California Cancer Registry. Patients completed a cross-sectional telephone interview in English, Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin. Multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by race/ethnicity, estimated the associations of patient demographic and health status characteristics on (1) doctor asked patient to help decide treatment plan and (2) patient and doctor worked out a treatment plan together.

RESULTS

We included 855 prostate cancer patients: African American (19%), Asian American (15%), Latino (24%), and White (42%). Asian American patients were less likely than White patients to report that their doctors asked them to help decide a treatment plan (OR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18-0.53) and that they worked out a treatment plan with their doctors (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.33-0.90). Language of interview was a significant contributing factor in stratified analysis for both outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Asian American prostate cancer patients reported less engagement in treatment decision-making, with Chinese language being a significant contributing factor. Future research should identify patient-centered strategies that effectively engage underserved patients and support healthcare providers in shared decision-making with multiethnic and multilingual patients.

Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Background

Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision‐making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM‐related outcomes.

Methods

This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently.

Results

Thirty‐two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty‐six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient‐ or surgeon‐driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision‐making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty‐five different SDM‐related outcomes were reported.

Conclusion

At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.

Heterogeneous data

The need for information among patients with hematological malignancies: Psychometric analyses of the 62-item Hematology Information Needs Questionnaire (HINQ-62)

The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric characteristics (content validity, internal consistency, and subscale structure) of the Hematology Information Needs Questionnaire-62 (HINQ-62), a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing the need for information among patients with hematological malignancies (HM-patients). Baseline data were used from a prospective study on the need for information which 336 newly diagnosed HM-patients had completed. In phase 1 (design phase), data from the first 135 patients were used and in phase 2 (validation phase), data from the remaining 201 HM patients were used. Content validity was analyzed by examining irrelevance of items. Items were considered irrelevant if more than 10% of the patients scored totally disagree on that item. The subscale structure of the HINQ-62 was investigated with Factor analysis (FA) (exploratory FA in phase 1 and confirmatory FA in phase 2). Cronbach's α was computed for the different subscales and >.70 was considered as good internal consistency. None of the 62 HINQ-items were irrelevant. Exploratory FA identified five subscales: "Disease, symptoms, treatment and side-effects", "Etiology, sleep and physical changes", "Self-care", "Medical tests and prognosis", and "Psychosocial". Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) among patients was 0.037 in phase 1 and 0.045 in phase 2. The comparative fit index (CFI)/Tucker-Lewis index -non-normed fit index among patients was 0.984/0.983 and 0.948/0.946, in phase 1 and 2 respectively. The internal consistency of the subscales was good, with Cronbach's α 0.82-0.99. The HINQ is a valid PROM for assessing the need for information among Dutch HM-patients at diagnosis.

Shared Decision-Making and Women's Adherence to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings

We examined the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) on women’s adherence to breast and cervical cancer screenings and estimated the prevalence and adherence rate of screenings. The study used a descriptive cross-sectional design using the 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) data collected by the National Cancer Institute. Adherence was defined based on the guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the composite measure of shared decision-making was constructed using three items in the data. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to examine the association between the SDM and adherence, controlling for cancer beliefs and socio-demographic variables. The analysis included 742 responses. Weighted to represent the U.S. population, 68.1% adhered to both breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. The composite measure of SDM was reliable (α = 0.85), and a higher SDM score was associated with women’s screening adherence (b = 0.17; p = 0.009). There were still women who did not receive cancer screenings as recommended. The results suggest that the use of the SDM approach for healthcare professionals’ communication with patients can improve screening adherence.

Adapting the Breast Cancer Surgery Decision Quality Instrument for Lower Socioeconomic Status: Improving Readability, Acceptability, and Relevance

Introduction. Breast cancer is the second most common malignancy in women. The Decision Quality Instrument (DQI) measures the extent to which patients are informed and involved in breast surgery decisions and receive treatment that aligns with their preferences. There are limited data on the performance of the DQI in women of lower socioeconomic status (SES). Our aims were to 1) examine (and if necessary adapt) the readability, usability, and acceptability of the DQI and 2) explore whether it captures factors important to breast cancer surgery decisions among women of lower SES (relevance). Methods. We conducted semistructured cognitive interviews with women of lower SES (based on insurance status, income, and education) who had completed early-stage breast cancer treatments at three cancer centers. We used a two-step thematic analysis with dual independent coding. The study team (including Patient Partners and a Community Advisory Board) reviewed and refined suggested changes. The revised DQI was presented in two focus groups of breast cancer survivors. Results. We conducted 39 interviews. Participants found most parts of the DQI to be helpful and easy to understand. We made the following suggested changes: 1) added a glossary of key terms, 2) added two answer choices and an open text question in the goals and concerns subscale, 3) reworded the treatment intention question, and 4) revised the knowledge subscale instructions since several women disliked the wording and were unsure of what was expected. Discussion. The readability, usability, acceptability, and relevance of a measure that was primarily developed and validated in women of higher SES required adaptation for optimal use by women of lower SES. Further research will test these adaptations in lower SES populations.

The availability and effectiveness of tools supporting shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer care: a review

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) in the management of metastatic breast cancer care is associated with positive patient outcomes. In daily clinical practice, however, SDM is not fully integrated yet. Initiatives to improve the implementation of SDM would be helpful. The aim of this review was to assess the availability and effectiveness of tools supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer care.

Methods

Literature databases were systematically searched for articles published since 2006 focusing on the development or evaluation of tools to improve information-provision and to support decision-making in metastatic breast cancer care. Internet searches and experts identified additional tools. Data from included tools were extracted and the evaluation of tools was appraised using the GRADE grading system.

Results

The literature search yielded five instruments. In addition, two tools were identified via internet searches and consultation of experts. Four tools were specifically developed for supporting SDM in metastatic breast cancer, the other three tools focused on metastatic cancer in general. Tools were mainly applicable across the care process, and usable for decisions on supportive care with or without chemotherapy. All tools were designed for patients to be used before a consultation with the physician. Effects on patient outcomes were generally weakly positive although most tools were not studied in well-designed studies.

Conclusions

Despite its recognized importance, only two tools were positively evaluated on effectiveness and are available to support patients with metastatic breast cancer in SDM. These tools show promising results in pilot studies and focus on different aspects of care. However, their effectiveness should be confirmed in well-designed studies before implementation in clinical practice. Innovation and development of SDM tools targeting clinicians as well as patients during a clinical encounter is recommended.

Use of Integrative Oncology, Involvement in Decision-Making, and Breast Cancer Survivor Health-Related Quality of Life in the First 5 Years Postdiagnosis

Objective: This study sought to describe changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of women who do and do not seek naturopathic oncology (NO) complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) care during and immediately after breast cancer treatment, and to explore the predictive role of NO CAM care, demographic characteristics, and involvement in decision-making on HRQOL in breast cancer survivors. Methods: Matched cohorts of breast cancer survivors who did and did not choose to supplement their breast cancer treatment with NO care within 2 years of diagnosis participated. NO users were identified through naturopathic doctors’ clinics and usual care (UC) controls with similar prognosis were identified through a cancer registry. The registry provided information about all participants’ age, race, ethnicity, marital status, stage of cancer at time of diagnosis, date of diagnosis, and use of conventional medical treatments (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and endocrine therapy). Data of participants’ self-reported involvement in decision-making and HRQOL were collected at study enrollment and at 6-month follow-up. Results: At 6-month follow-up, the NO patients reported significantly more involvement in decision-making about care and better general health than did UC patients (P < .05). Self-reported involvement in decision-making about cancer treatment was associated with better role-physical, role-emotional, and social-functional well-being (P < .05). Race, age, marital status, and congruence of preferred and achieved levels of involvement also predicted aspects of HRQOL in breast cancer survivors (P < .05). Conclusions: Both NO CAM care and involvement in decision-making about cancer treatment may be associated with better HRQOL in breast cancer survivors.

What matters most: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of breast cancer surgery encounter decision aids across socioeconomic strata

Background

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women. Mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) have equivalent survival for early stage breast cancer. However, each surgery has different benefits and harms that women may value differently. Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) diagnosed with early stage breast cancer are more likely to experience poorer doctor-patient communication, lower satisfaction with surgery and decision-making, and higher decision regret compared to women of higher SES. They often play a more passive role in decision-making and are less likely to undergo BCS. Our aim is to understand how best to support women of lower SES in making decisions about early stage breast cancer treatments and to reduce disparities in decision quality across socioeconomic strata.

Methods

We will conduct a three-arm, multi-site randomized controlled superiority trial with stratification by SES and clinician-level randomization. At four large cancer centers in the United States, 1100 patients (half higher SES and half lower SES) will be randomized to: (1) Option Grid, (2) Picture Option Grid, or (3) usual care. Interviews, field-notes, and observations will be used to explore strategies that promote the interventions’ sustained use and dissemination. Community-Based Participatory Research will be used throughout. We will include women aged at least 18 years of age with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer (I to IIIA) from both higher and lower SES, provided they speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese. Our primary outcome measure is the 16-item validated Decision Quality Instrument. We will use a regression framework, mediation analyses, and multiple informants analysis. Heterogeneity of treatment effects analyses for SES, age, ethnicity, race, literacy, language, and study site will be performed.

Discussion

Currently, women of lower SES are more likely to make treatment decisions based on incomplete or uninformed preferences, potentially leading to poorer decision quality, quality of life, and decision regret. This study hopes to identify solutions that effectively improve patient-centered care across socioeconomic strata and reduce disparities in decision and care quality.

Trial registration

NCT03136367 at ClinicalTrials.gov

Protocol version: Manuscript based on study protocol version 2.2, 7 November 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5109-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Association of Decision-making with Patients' Perceptions of Care and Knowledge during Longitudinal Pulmonary Nodule Surveillance

RATIONALE

Patient participation in medical decision-making is widely advocated, but outcomes are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the associations between medical decision-making roles, and patients' perceptions of their care and knowledge while undergoing pulmonary nodule surveillance.

METHODS

The study setting was an academically affiliated Veterans Affairs hospital network in which 121 participants had 319 decision-making encounters. The Control Preferences Scale was used to assess patients' decision-making roles. Associations between decision-making, including role concordance (i.e., agreement between patients' preferred and actual roles), shared decision-making (SDM), and perceptions of care and knowledge, were assessed using logistic regression and generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Participants had a preferred role in 98% of encounters, and most desired an active role (shared or patient controlled). For some encounters (36%), patients did not report their actual decision-making role, because they did not know what their role was. Role concordance and SDM occurred in 56% and 26% of encounters, respectively. Role concordance was associated with greater satisfaction with medical care (adjusted odds ratio [Adj-OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-17.26), higher quality of patient-reported care (Adj-OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31-6.27), and more disagreement that care could be better (Adj-OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.12-4.16). Role concordance was not associated with improved pulmonary nodule knowledge with respect to lung cancer risk (Adj-OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.00) or nodule information received (Adj-OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.31-4.13). SDM was not associated with perceptions of care or knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing longitudinal nodule surveillance, a majority had a preference for having active roles in decision-making. Interestingly, during some encounters, patients did not know what their role was or that a decision was being made. Role concordance was associated with greater patient-reported satisfaction and quality of medical care, but not with improved knowledge. Patient participation in decision-making may influence perceptions of care; however, clinicians may need to focus on other communication strategies or domains to improve patient knowledge and health outcomes.

Methods for Incorporating Patient Preferences for Treatments of Depression in Community Mental Health Settings

We developed three methods (rating, ranking, and discrete choice) for identifying patients' preferred depression treatments based on their prioritization of specific treatment attributes (e.g., medication side effects, psychotherapy characteristics) at treatment intake. Community mental health patients with depressive symptoms participated in separate studies of predictive validity (N = 193) and short-term (1-week) stability (N = 40). Patients who received non-preferred initial treatments (based on the choice method) switched treatments significantly more often than those who received preferred initial treatments. Receiving a non-preferred treatment at any point (based on rating and choice methods) was a significant predictor of longer treatment duration. All three methods demonstrated good short-term stability.

Predicting the preferences for involvement in medical decision making among patients with mental disorders

BACKGROUND

The involvement of patients in medical decision making has been investigated widely in somatic diseases. However, little is known about the preferences for involvement and variables that could predict these preferences in patients with mental disorders.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine what roles mentally ill patients actually want to assume when making medical decisions and to identify the variables that could predict this role, including patients' self-efficacy.

METHOD

Demographic and clinical data of 798 patients with mental disorders from three psychotherapeutic units in Germany were elicited using self-report questionnaires. Control preference was measured using the Control Preferences Scale, and patients' perceived self-efficacy was assessed using the Self-Efficacy Scale. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to investigate the associations between patient variables and control preference.

RESULTS

Most patients preferred a collaborative role (57.5%), followed by a semi passive (21.2%), a partly autonomous (16.2%), an autonomous (2.8%) and a fully passive (2.3%) role when making medical decisions. Age, sex, diagnosis, employment status, medical pretreatment and perceived self-efficacy were associated with the preference for involvement in the multivariate logistic model.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the preferences for involvement in medical decisions of mentally ill patients. We reconfirmed previous findings that older patients prefer a shared role over an autonomous role and that subjects with a high qualification prefer a more autonomous role over a shared role. The knowledge about predictors may help strengthen treatment effectiveness because matching the preferred and actual role preferences has been shown to improve clinical outcome.

Evaluating a Decision Aid for Improving Decision Making in Patients with Early-stage Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Early-stage breast cancer patients face a series of complex treatment decisions, with the first typically being choice of locoregional treatment. There is a need for tools to support patients in this decision-making process.

METHODS

We developed an innovative, online locoregional treatment tool based on International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria. We evaluated its impact on patient knowledge about treatment and appraisal of decision making in a pilot study using a clinical sample of newly diagnosed, breast cancer patients who were randomized to view the decision aid website first or complete a survey prior to viewing the decision aid. Differences in knowledge and decision appraisal between the two groups were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Computer-generated preferences for treatment were compared with patients' stated preferences using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

One hundred and one newly diagnosed patients were randomized to view the website first or take a survey first. Women who viewed the website first had slightly higher, though not significantly, knowledge about surgery (p = 0.29) and reconstruction (p = 0.10) than the survey-first group. Those who viewed the website first also appraised their decision process significantly more favorably than did those who took the survey first (p < 0.05 for most decision outcomes). There was very good concordance between computer-suggested and stated treatment preferences.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests that an interactive decision tool shows promise for supporting early-stage breast cancer patients with complicated treatment decision making.

Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery Can Benefit from the Opportunity to Participate in Choosing Their Surgical Technique

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated in many countries. The aims of this study were to investigate whether patients receiving breast-conserving surgery at Skåne University Hospital Malmö, Sweden, perceived an offered possibility to join in the decision-making process regarding the surgical method; to identify potential determinants for not having perceived such an offer; and to study how this perception of being offered an opportunity to take part in the decision-making process affected satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome.

METHODS

Women offered breast-conserving surgery were consecutively recruited over a period of 4 years. In all, 324 women completed a study-specific questionnaire.

RESULTS

A majority of the women (53 %) perceived that they had not, or had only partly, been offered a possibility to take part in the decision-making process. Patients who reported that they had received enough preoperative information regarding the expected aesthetic result were more likely to have perceived such an offer (odds ratio (OR) 5.44; confidence interval (CI) 2.83-10.43). Women who had perceived an opportunity to be involved were more satisfied with the aesthetic result (OR 2.71; CI 1.18-6.25) and more likely to have had their expectations met regarding the aesthetic result (OR 5.91; CI 2.01-17.38).

CONCLUSION

When deciding on a suitable surgical approach for women with early breast cancer, physicians could try to more clearly communicate to the women that they can choose whether or not to participate in the decision-making regarding surgical technique. This might improve satisfaction. An important part of patient involvement is sufficient preoperative information.

Patient-Reported Roles, Preferences, and Expectations Regarding Treatment of Stage I Rectal Cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium

BACKGROUND

Historically, stage I rectal cancer was treated with total mesorectal excision. However, there has been growing use of local excision, with and without adjuvant therapy, to treat these early rectal cancers. Little is known about how patients and providers choose among the various treatment approaches.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify patient roles, preferences, and expectations as they relate to treatment decision making for patients with stage I rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This is a population-based study.

SETTINGS

The study included a geographically diverse population and health-system-based cohort.

PATIENTS

A total of 154 adults with newly diagnosed and surgically treated stage I rectal cancer between 2003 and 2005 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared patients by surgical treatment groups, including total mesorectal excision and local excision. Clinical, sociodemographic, and health-system factors were assessed for association with patient decision-making preferences and expectations.

RESULTS

A total of 80% of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision versus 63% of patients who underwent local excision expected that surgery would be curative (p = 0.04). The total mesorectal excision group was less likely to report that radiation would cure their cancer compared with the local excision group (27% vs 63%; p = 0.004). When asked about their preferred role in decision making, 28% of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision preferred patient-controlled decision making compared with 48% of patients who underwent local excision (p = 0.046). However, with regard to the treatment actually received, 38% of the total mesorectal excision group reported making their own surgical decision compared with 25% of the local excision group (p = 0.18).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferred decision-making role for patients did not match the actual decision-making process. Future efforts should focus on bridging the gap between the decision-making process and patient preferences regarding various treatment approaches. This will be particularly important as newer innovative procedures play a more prominent role in the rectal cancer treatment paradigm.

Satisfaction of breast cancer patients regarding surgery and radiation therapy: A survey in Japan

Purpose

To evaluate patient satisfaction in Japan and factors, including timing factors, cost, and specific medical practices derived from Western influence (shared decision-making and second opinion), which might affect satisfaction.

Methods and materials

All patients who presented to 1 large Japanese department of radiation oncology for postoperative radiation therapy for breast cancer from September 2010 to November 2013 were included in this study. The questionnaire was distributed to patients after the radiation oncologist consultation, and patients were asked to complete it anonymously by the end of treatment. We measured patient satisfaction with overall treatment and for each treatment separately (surgery, radiation oncology). We further inquired regarding facts that could affect satisfaction, including time from diagnosis to treatment start, waiting time in waiting room for consultation, average length of consultations, out-of-pocket cost for breast cancer treatment, patients' opinion of the cost, level of inclusion of the patient in decision-making, level of the patient sharing her feelings with her physician, and whether the patients had asked for second opinion.

Results

Of 364 patients surveyed, 214 (58.5%) responded. Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with surgeon and with radiation oncologist were 95.7%, 98.5%, and 98.2%, respectively. Factors correlated with satisfaction were waiting time for the consult in the waiting room, treatment cost, and perceived degree of sharing feelings with physicians. Overall, 27 patients (12.6%) reported having asked for second opinions. Of those who did not seek a second opinion, most (173) indicated that they did not think it was necessary.

Conclusions

In a large, typical Japanese radiation oncology practice, breast cancer patients' satisfaction correlated with waiting time, cost, and the rate with which the patient shared her feelings with her physician. This illuminates targets for quality improvement within the Japanese system and provides interesting cross-cultural comparative data for other countries in which the context of care may differ.

Cancer treatment decision-making among young adults with lung and colorectal cancer: a comparison with adults in middle age

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to understand experiences with treatment decision-making among young adults with cancer.

METHODS

We studied patients with lung cancer or colorectal cancer in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium, a prospective cohort study. We identified 148 young adult patients aged 21-40 years who completed baseline interview questions about cancer treatment decision-making; each was propensity score matched to three middle adult patients aged 41-60 years, for a cohort of 592 patients. Patients were asked about decision-making preferences, family involvement in decision-making, and worries about treatment. An ordinal logistic regression model evaluated factors associated with more treatment worries.

RESULTS

Young and middle-aged adults reported similar decision-making preferences (p = 0.80) and roles relative to physicians (p = 0.36). Although family involvement was similar in the age groups (p = 0.21), young adults were more likely to have dependent children in the home (60% younger versus 28% middle-aged adults, p < 0.001). Young adults reported more worries about time away from family (p = 0.002), and, in unadjusted analyses, more cancer treatment-related worries (mean number of responses of 'somewhat' or 'very' worried 2.5 for younger versus 2.2 for middle-aged adults, p = 0.02.) However, in adjusted analyses, worries were associated with the presence of dependent children in the home (odds ratio [OR] 1.55, 95% CI = 1.07-2.24, p = 0.02), rather than age.

CONCLUSIONS

Young adults involve doctors and family members in decisions at rates similar to middle-aged adults but experience more worries about time away from family. Patients with dependent children are especially likely to experience worries. Treatment decision-making strategies should be based on individual preferences and needs rather than age alone. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An Online Learning Module to Increase Self-Efficacy and Involvement in Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer: Research Protocol

Background

Improving patient care for individuals with lung cancer is a priority due to the increasing burden of the disease globally. One way this can be done is by improving patient self-management capabilities through increasing their self-efficacy. This can improve positive outcomes for patients with chronic conditions and increase their ability to manage the challenges of such illnesses. Unfortunately, patients with chronic conditions often struggle to travel far from home to engage with patient education events, a common means of improving self-efficacy. The development of more accessible tools for improving patient self-efficacy is required to increase quality of life for patients with chronic conditions.

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility of delivering symptom identification and management information to patients with advanced lung cancer using an online program.

Methods

This article describes a pre-post test study to evaluate a Qstream online learning platform to improve patient self-efficacy for managing advanced lung cancer symptoms. Undertaking this program should increase participant knowledge about the side-effects they may experience as a result of their treatment and in turn increase help-seeking behavior and self-efficacy for the participant cohort. Quantitative data collected by the Qstream platform on the completion rates of participants will be used as a tool to evaluate the intervention. Additionally, validated scales will be used to collect data on patient self-efficacy. Qualitative data will also be collected via an exit survey and thematic content analysis of semi-structured interviews.

Results

The research is in the preliminary stages but thus far a protocol has been approved in support of the project. Additionally, advisory committee members have been identified and initial meetings have been undertaken.

Conclusions

Development of new approaches for increasing patient understanding of their care is important to ensure high quality care continues to be delivered in the clinical setting.

Concordance between patient satisfaction and the dentist's view: findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

OBJECTIVES

In this study, the authors examined the dentist's view of the patient's experience and concordance with the patient's rating of satisfaction.

METHODS

Practitioners from 197 practices in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network recruited consecutively seen patients who had defective restorations that were replaced or repaired. At the end of the dental visit, the treating dentist and 5,315 patients completed and returned a survey that asked about the patient's satisfaction.

RESULTS

Most dentists viewed their patients as having been satisfied with the treatment experience (n = 4,719 [89 percent]) and as having perceived them as friendly (n = 5,136 [97 percent]). Dentists had less strong feelings about whether patients had a preference for the restorative material (n = 2,271 [43 percent]) or an interest in obtaining information about the procedure (n = 1,757 [33 percent]). Overall, patients were satisfied, and most of the time dentists correctly predicted this outcome. Among patients who were less than satisfied, there was a substantial subset of cases in which dentists were not aware of this dissatisfaction.

CONCLUSION

For improved patient-centered care, dentists should assess patients' desires, expectations and perceptions of the dental care experience and then manage or correct the expectations and perceptions as needed.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

By taking a patient-centered approach, dentists should seek to understand how patients evaluate and rate the services provided, thereby enabling them to focus on what each patient values most.

Association of Actual and Preferred Decision Roles With Patient-Reported Quality of Care: Shared Decision Making in Cancer Care

IMPORTANCE

Shared decision making is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes of cancer treatment, but not all patients prefer to participate in medical decisions. Results from studies of the effect of matching between actual and preferred medical decision roles on patients' perceptions of care quality have been conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether shared decision making was associated with patient ratings of care quality and physician communication and whether patients' preferred decision roles modified those associations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a population- and health system-based survey of participants in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS) study diagnosed with lung and/or colorectal cancer between 2003 and 2005 (56% with colorectal cancer, 40% with non-small-cell lung cancer, and 5% with small-cell lung cancer). The CanCORS study included 9737 patients (cooperation rate among patients contacted, 59.9%) treated in integrated care delivery systems, academic institutions, private offices, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The medical records were abstracted between October 11, 2005, and April 30, 2009; all analyses were conducted between 2013 and 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

We surveyed patients specifically about their preferred roles in cancer treatment decisions and their actual roles in decisions about surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. We analyzed the responses of 5315 patients who completed baseline surveys and reported decision roles for a total of 10 817 treatment decisions and assessed associations of patients' decision roles with patient-reported quality of care and physician communication.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes (identified before data collection) included patient-reported excellent quality of care and top ratings (highest score) on a physician communication scale.

RESULTS

After adjustment, patients describing physician-controlled (vs shared) decisions were less likely to report excellent quality of care (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.75; P < .001). Patients' preferred decision roles did not modify this effect (P = .29 for the interaction). Patients describing either actual or preferred physician-controlled (vs shared) roles were less likely to provide a top rating of physician communication (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.66; P < .001, and OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P = .002, respectively). The preferred role did not modify the effect of the actual role (P = .76 for interaction).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Physician-controlled decisions regarding lung or colorectal cancer treatment were associated with lower ratings of care quality and physician communication. These effects were independent of patients' preferred decision roles, underscoring the importance of seeking to involve all patients in decision making about their treatment.

Shared decision-making in the People's Republic of China: current status and future directions

BACKGROUND

Severe insufficiencies in the supply and inequities in the distribution of health care professionals, facilities, and services create conditions for limited quality of care and lack of trust - even violent conflict - between clinicians and patients in the People's Republic of China. Alongside structural reform, shared decision-making (SDM) may help meet the needs and advance the goals of each patient. Little is known, however, about the realities and opportunities for SDM in the People's Republic of China.

METHODS

To identify reports of SDM in the People's Republic of China, we used multiple sources, including: several databases, searched in English and Chinese, online journals, and clinical trial registries. In addition, we contacted experts in the field to identify any articles missed through our other search strategies. We included all trials and surveys reporting on SDM in Chinese patients. We summarized these studies by describing them with particular attention to reports of patient decisional preference and of the impact of SDM interventions on outcomes in Chinese patients.

RESULTS

We identified five surveys examining patient preference for SDM and nine studies examining constructs related to SDM in Chinese patients, but none involving patients in Mainland China. We could not find any reports of development, testing, or implementation of SDM tools for patients in Mainland China.

CONCLUSION

The research on SDM in the People's Republic of China is limited, with almost no direct evidence to inform clinical policies or implementation. Although multiple barriers are apparent, the value of implementing, testing, and disseminating effective SDM in the People's Republic of China in terms of patient experience and outcomes demands urgent realization.

Enablers and barriers to using patient decision aids in early stage breast cancer consultations: a qualitative study of surgeons' views

BACKGROUND

For early stage breast cancer, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that patient decision aids (PtDAs), when used by surgeons, result in increased patient knowledge about options and different patient treatment choices as compared to standard care. Yet, recent data suggests that PtDAs are used by less than 25% of Canadian cancer physicians. We conducted a study to explore breast cancer surgeons' views on enablers and barriers to the use of PtDAs in their practice.

METHODS

Purposeful sampling was used to select breast cancer surgeons in three Ontario health regions to participate in semi-structured interviews. Inductive coding and the constant comparative method were used to identify the main themes.

RESULTS

Twenty-two surgeons (79%) agreed to participate (median age, 50 years; 9 (40%) female). Surgeons practiced in academic (n = 7, 32%) or community (n = 15, 68%) hospitals. Fourteen surgeons were aware of PtDAs, nine had used a PtDA with patients as part of an RCT, and six had developed their own informal PtDA for use in their practice. Enablers of informal PtDA use included surgeon exposure during training and surgeon perceived need for a systematic approach when communicating risks and benefits of surgical treatments with patients. Barriers to formal PtDA use included high surgeon confidence in their verbal communication skills, surgeon belief that patients understood conveyed information, and difficulties embedding such tools in practice routines.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons in this study valued systematic communication with patients. Several surgeons changed their practice to include formal or informal PtDAs provided they perceived there was a clear benefit to themselves or to patients. However, high surgeon confidence in their personal communications skills coupled with beliefs that patients understand conveyed information may be key barriers to PtDA uptake once surgeons have established communication routines.

Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes.

Does the cancer patient want to know? Results from a study in an Indian tertiary cancer center

OBJECTIVE

The disclosure of the diagnosis of cancer is a distressing and complex issue. Families and doctors still do not tell patients when they have cancer in the belief that the patient does not want to know and telling him would lead to fear and depression. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the information needs of Indian cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 300 patients' views was conducted with the help of an adaptation of Cassileth's Information Needs questionnaire.

RESULTS

A majority of cancer patients exhibited a strong need for information about illness and treatment. Ninety-four percent wanted to know if their illness was cancer. Most patients also wanted to know the chance of cure (92%). Age, education, and type of treatment significantly affect information preferences. Gender did not have an effect on information needs.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that most of the patients wanted to know about their illness, treatment, side-effects, and chances of cure.

Physician-related facilitators and barriers to patient involvement in treatment decision making in early stage breast cancer: perspectives of physicians and patients

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients' and physicians' perceptions of physician-related verbal and nonverbal facilitators and barriers to patient involvement in treatment decision making (TDM) occurring during clinical encounters for women with early stage breast cancer (ESBC).

METHODS

Eligible women were offered treatment options including surgery and adjuvant therapy. Eligible physicians provided care for women with ESBC in either a teaching hospital or an academic cancer centre. In Phase 1, women were interviewed 1-2 weeks after their initial consultation. In Phase 2, women and their physicians were interviewed separately while watching their own consultation on a digital video disk. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed.

RESULTS

Forty women with ESBC and six physicians participated. Patients and physicians identified thirteen categories of physician facilitators of women's involvement. Of these, seven categories were frequently identified by women: conveyed a rationale for patient involvement in TDM; explained the risk of cancer recurrence; explained treatment options; enhanced patient understanding of information; gave time for TDM; offered a treatment recommendation; and made women feel comfortable. Physicians described similar information-giving facilitators but less often mentioned other facilitators. Few physician barriers to women's involvement in TDM were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with ESBC and cancer physicians shared some views of how physicians involve patients in TDM, although there were important differences. Physicians may underestimate the importance that women's place on understanding the rationale for their involvement in TDM and on feeling comfortable during the consultation.

Patient involvement in surgical treatment decisions and satisfaction with the treatment results after lumbar intervertebral discectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate involvement of patients in surgical treatment decision making (STDM) in relations to satisfaction with the results of lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

We evaluated prospectively 150 surgically treated patients with radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation (LDH). The patients completed self-reported questionnaires about preferences for involvement and actual involvement in STDM. Global satisfaction with the results of the treatment was assessed at 1 year after the operation.

RESULTS

Most of the patients (129 patients, 86%) stated that they had been sufficiently informed about LDH to be involved in the treatment decisions, almost half of the patients (47%) preferred active or collaborative involvement and 58% of the patients reported higher actual involvement in STDM. Congruence between preferred and actual roles in decision making was 64%. Most of the patients (77%) were satisfied with the results of the operation, but satisfaction was not associated with involvement of patients in STDM.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients with LDH prefer to be actively involved in treatment decisions and experience an STDM process that matches their preferences for participation. However, individual differences in preferences for involvement in STDM are common and global satisfaction with the treatment results is not significantly related to the activity of involvement in STDM.

Variation in reported experience of involvement in cancer treatment decision making: evidence from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey

BACKGROUND

Exploring variation in patients' experiences of involvement in treatment decision making can identify groups needing extra support, such as additional consultation time, when considering treatment options.

METHODS

We analysed data from the 2010 English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, a national survey of all patients attending hospitals in England for cancer treatment over a 3-month period, to examine how experience of involvement in decisions about treatment varied between patients with 38 different primary cancers using logistic regression. We analysed responses from 41 411 patients to a single question examining patient experience of involvement in treatment decision making. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios of reporting the most positive experience between patients of different sociodemographic and tumour characteristics and explored the effects of adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, cancer type and hospital of treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 41 441 respondents, 29 776 (72%) reported positive experiences of decision-making involvement. Younger patients reported substantially less positive experiences of involvement in decision making (adjusted OR=0.49 16-24 vs 65-74; P<0.001), as did ethnic minorities (adjusted ORs=0.52, 0.62 and 0.73 for Black, Chinese and Asian vs White patients, respectively; P<0.001). Experience varied considerably between patients with different cancers ( e.g., OR=0.52 for anal and 1.37 for melanoma vs colon cancer; P<0.001), with ovarian, myeloma, bladder and rectal cancer patients reporting substantially worse experiences compared with other patients with gynaecological, haematological, urological and colorectal cancers, respectively. Clustering of different patient groups within hospitals with outlying performance report scores could not account for observed differences.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to improve involvement in treatment decision making can focus on those who report the worst experience, in particular younger patients, ethnic minorities and patients with rectal, ovarian, multiple myeloma and bladder cancer.

Consultations between patients with breast cancer and surgeons: a pathway from patient-centered communication to reduced hopelessness

PURPOSE

Patient-centered communication (PCC) affects psychosocial health outcomes of patients. However, these effects are rarely direct, and our understanding of such effects are largely based on self-report (v observational) data. More information is needed on the pathways by which concrete PCC behaviors affect specific psychosocial outcomes in cancer care. We hypothesized that PCC behaviors increase the satisfaction of patients with surgeons, which, in turn, reduces the postconsultation hopelessness of patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In Portland, OR, we videotaped consultations between 147 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and nine surgeons and administered surveys to participants immediately preconsultation and postconsultation. Consultations were coded for PCC behaviors. Multivariate regression models analyzed the association between PCC and the satisfaction of patients and between satisfaction and hopelessness.

RESULTS

Levels of hopelessness of patients significantly decreased from preconsultation to postconsultation (P < .001). Two PCC behaviors (ie, patient asserting treatment preference [odds ratio {OR}, 1.50/log unit; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.23/log unit; P = .042] and surgeon providing good/hopeful news [OR, 1.62/log unit; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.60/log unit; P = .047]) were independently significantly associated with the satisfaction of patients with surgeons, which, in turn, independently predicted reduced levels of postconsultation hopelessness (linear change, -0.78; 95% CI, 1.44 to -0.12; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Although additional research is needed with larger and more-diverse data sets, these findings suggest the possibility that concrete and trainable PCC behaviors can lower the hopelessness of patients with breast cancer indirectly through their effects on patient satisfaction with care.

Patient and physician decision styles and breast cancer chemotherapy use in older women: Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol 369901

PURPOSE Physician and patient decision styles may influence breast cancer care for patients ≥ 65 years ("older") because there is uncertainty about chemotherapy benefits in this group. We evaluate associations between decision-making styles and actual treatment. METHODS Data were collected from women treated outside of clinical trials for newly diagnosed stage I to III breast cancer (83% response) from January 2004 through April 2011 in 75 cooperative group sites. Physicians completed a one-time mailed survey (91% response), and clinical data were abstracted from charts. Patient decision style was measured on a five-point scale. Oncologists' preference for prescribing chemotherapy was based on standardized vignettes. Regression and multiple imputation were used to assess associations between chemotherapy and other variables. Results There were 1,174 women seen by 212 oncologists; 43% of women received chemotherapy. One-third of women preferred to make their own treatment decision. Patient and physician decision styles were independently associated with chemotherapy. Women who preferred less physician input had lower odds of chemotherapy than women who preferred more input (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 per 1-point change; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97; P = .02) after considering covariates. Patients whose oncologists had a high chemotherapy preference had higher odds of receiving chemotherapy (OR = 2.65; 95% CI, 1.80 to 3.89; P < .001) than those who saw oncologists with a low preference. CONCLUSION Physicians' and older patients' decision styles are each associated with breast cancer chemotherapy use. It will be important to re-evaluate the impact of decision styles when there is greater empirical evidence about the benefits and risks of chemotherapy in older patients.

Breast cancer treatment decision making among Latinas and non-Latina Whites: a communication model predicting decisional outcomes and quality of life

OBJECTIVE

Deciding among medical treatment options is a pivotal event following cancer diagnosis, a task that can be particularly daunting for individuals uncomfortable with communication in a medical context. Few studies have explored the surgical decision-making process and associated outcomes among Latinas. We propose a model to elucidate pathways through which acculturation (indicated by language use) and reports of communication effectiveness specific to medical decision making contribute to decisional outcomes (i.e., congruency between preferred and actual involvement in decision making, treatment satisfaction) and quality of life among Latinas and non-Latina White women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Latinas (N = 326) and non-Latina Whites (N = 168) completed measures six months after breast cancer diagnosis, and quality of life was assessed 18 months after diagnosis. Structural equation modeling was used to examine relationships between language use, communication effectiveness, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among Latinas, 63% reported congruency in decision making, whereas 76% of non-Latina Whites reported congruency. In Latinas, greater use of English was related to better reported communication effectiveness. Effectiveness in communication was not related to congruency in decision making, but several indicators of effectiveness in communication were related to greater treatment satisfaction, as was greater congruency in decision making. Greater treatment satisfaction predicted more favorable quality of life. The final model fit the data well only for Latinas. Differences in quality of life and effectiveness in communication were observed between racial/ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings underscore the importance of developing targeted interventions for physicians and Latinas with breast cancer to enhance communication in decision making.

Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this paper is to examine the acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of a new decision quality instrument that assesses the extent to which patients are informed and receive treatments that match their goals.

METHODS

Cross-sectional mail survey of recent breast cancer survivors, providers and healthy controls and a retest survey of survivors. The decision quality instrument includes knowledge questions and a set of goals, and results in two scores: a breast cancer surgery knowledge score and a concordance score, which reflects the percentage of patients who received treatments that match their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity, content validity, predictive validity and retest reliability of the survey instrument were examined.

RESULTS

We had responses from 440 eligible patients, 88 providers and 35 healthy controls. The decision quality instrument was feasible to implement in this study, with low missing data. The knowledge score had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70) and discriminated between providers and patients (mean difference 35%, p<0.001). The majority of providers felt that the knowledge items covered content that was essential for the decision. Five of the 6 treatment goals met targets for content validity. The five goals had moderate to strong retest reliability (0.64 to 0.87). The concordance score was 89%, indicating that a majority had treatments concordant with that predicted by their goals. Patients who had concordant treatment had similar levels of confidence and regret as those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision quality instrument met the criteria of feasibility, reliability, discriminant and content validity in this sample. Additional research to examine performance of the instrument in prospective studies and more diverse populations is needed.

Physical distress and cancer care experiences among Chinese-American and non-Hispanic White breast cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

The number of Chinese-American breast cancer survivors (BCS) is increasing as a result of increasing incidence rates. There has been little research on Chinese BCS' follow-up cancer care. This qualitative study aims to understand how Chinese-American BCS experience and cope with physical distress relative to non-Hispanic White (NHW) survivors.

METHODS

Seventy-one BCS (37 Chinese immigrant, 7 US-born Chinese, 27 NHW) were recruited from the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry to participate in focus group discussions or one-on-one interviews about their survivorship experiences. All BCS were diagnosed with breast cancer at stage 0-IIA between 2006 and 2009, and had survived for 1-4 years without recurrence. Interviews were conducted in Cantonese, Mandarin, or English. Data analyses followed established qualitative methods of content analysis.

RESULTS

BCS experienced pain and side effects from radiation, surgery, and hormonal therapy. Physical distress subsequently caused emotional concerns about recurrence or metastasis. Most BCS consulted physicians about their physical distress. Chinese immigrant BCS were less likely to have their issues resolved compared to NHW and US-born Chinese who were more likely to question physicians, ask for referrals, and make repeat attempts if their problems were not resolved. Some Chinese immigrant BCS turned to Traditional Chinese Medicine for relief or accepted the idea that physical distress was part of survivorship.

CONCLUSION

Chinese immigrant BCS may be at risk for greater distress compared with US-born Chinese and NHW BCS because of cultural norms that make them less inclined to express their needs to physicians or challenge physicians when their needs are not met. Furthermore, they may express symptoms in culturally unique ways (e.g., hot-cold imbalances). Further research is needed to determine how to best improve survivorship care experiences in this understudied population, with the goal of decreasing BCS' physical distress and improving quality of life.

Quality of life outcomes in patients with breast cancer

Health-related quality of life is now considered an important endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It has been shown that assessing quality of life in cancer patients could contribute to improved treatment and could even serve as a prognostic factor along with medical parameters. This paper presents a review of quality of life outcomes in patients with breast cancer according to previous descriptive findings. This is a bibliographic review of the literature covering publications that appeared in English language biomedical journals between 1987 and 2008. The search strategy included a combination of the key words quality of life and breast cancer in the titles of published articles. The major findings are summarized and presented under different headings: evaluation of health-related quality of life i) at the time of diagnosis, ii) during treatment, and iii) after the completion of treatment. Breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy might experience several side-effects and symptoms that have a negative effect on their quality of life. Also adjuvant hormonal therapies were found to have a similar negative impact on quality of life. Psychological distress-anxiety and depression were found to be common among breast cancer patients. Symptoms-pain, fatigue, and insomnia were among the most common symptoms reported. There was quite an extensive body of literature on quality of life in breast cancer patients. These papers have made a considerable contribution to improving breast cancer care.

Why do hospital mastectomy rates vary? Differences in the decision-making experiences of women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Hospital mastectomy rates vary. This study explores the relationship between mastectomy rates and breast cancer patients' consultation and decision-making experiences with specialist clinicians.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 patients from three purposively selected breast units from a single UK region. Patients provided with a choice of breast cancer surgery (breast conservation therapy (BCT) or mastectomy) were purposively recruited from high, medium and low case-mix-adjusted mastectomy rate units.

RESULTS

Low mastectomy rate unit patients' consultation and decision-making experiences were markedly different to those of the medium and high mastectomy rate breast units. Treatment variation was associated with patients' perception of the most reassuring and least disruptive treatment; the content and style of information provision (equipoise or directed); level of patient participation in decision making; the time and process of decision making and patient autonomy in decision making. The provision of more comprehensive less directive information and greater autonomy, time and support of independent decision making were associated with a lower uptake of BCT.

CONCLUSION

Variation in hospital mastectomy rates was associated with differences in the consultation and decision-making experiences of breast cancer patients. Higher mastectomy rates were associated with the facilitation of more informed autonomous patient decision making.