Validity of the French version of the Autonomy Preference Index and its adaptation for patients with advanced cancer

Patient-Centred Preferences for Autonomy and Information-Seeking Among Periodontal Patients in Dental Decision Making

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Managing periodontal disease often involves complex decisions involving multiple treatment options, and patient autonomy significantly influences this decision-making process. This study aimed to characterise the autonomy and information-seeking preferences among patients diagnosed with stage III/IV periodontitis, and to identify the factors influencing these preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey included 96 patients diagnosed with periodontal disease, all of whom underwent periodontal treatment or tooth extraction between May 2021 and February 2022. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire incorporating the Autonomy Preference Index (API) to assess their decision-making and information-seeking preferences, along with demographic information, using a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Decision-making preferences were centrally distributed, with a score of 2.87 ± 0.47 (mean ± SD), indicating that most periodontal patients favoured a collaborative decision-making model. In contrast, information-seeking preferences were skewed, with a strong concentration towards the higher end of information preferences; the score was 4.55 ± 0.08. Lower age (p = 0.008) was associated with a preference for greater autonomy, while the financial burden (p = 0.034) was linked to reduced information-seeking preferences. Patients' autonomy remained relatively consistent across different periodontal clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that periodontitis patients prefer to be well informed and share decision-making responsibilities with healthcare professionals after their diagnosis. Factors such as age and financial burden affect their autonomy, involvement and desire for information.

The Chinese version of the autonomy preference index for advanced cancer patients: a study on cultural adaptation based on cognitive interview

BACKGROUND

The global cancer burden is becoming increasingly severe. In the context of patient-centred medicine, respecting patients' autonomy and preferences is of paramount importance. However, there is currently a lack of scientific tools in China to measure the autonomous preferences of advanced cancer patients. We aim to optimise assessment tools for patients' autonomous preferences and validate their effectiveness, thereby filling a gap in related research, in hopes of improving the quality of medical care in China.

OBJECTIVES

① To assess the semantic clarity of entries of the Chinese Autonomy Preference Index (API) and determine whether patients can accurately comprehend their content. ② To validate the application effect of cognitive interviews in the translation of the scale into the Chinese culture and context.

METHODS

In March and April 2023, we selected 17 advanced cancer patients by convenience sampling in Zunyi, Guizhou, China, to participate in this study. We assessed their understanding of each item in the Chinese API scale through cognitive interviews and made the corresponding revisions to the scale items based on the interview results.

RESULTS

The respondents' understanding of various API entries after translation and adaptation was assessed. Based on the interview results, ambiguous entries were revised to create a refined Chinese version of the API. Ultimately, the API comprises two dimensions and 23 entries. The results of the first round of interviews revealed doubts or ambiguities in the semantic expression and understanding of 5 items, which were then revised following discussions by the research team. The second round of interviews confirmed that the interviewees could correctly understand the content of the entries without further modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

① Cognitive interviews can address discrepancies in the understanding of scale items among the target population and mitigate measurement errors stemming from item content ambiguity. ② Targeted questionnaire revisions have improved the accuracy, reliability, and applicability of the Chinese version of the API questionnaire. The Chinese version of the Autonomy-Preference-Index offers clinical healthcare professionals an effective measurement tool to assess the autonomous preferences of advanced cancer patients.

Is shared decision making an aspect of palliative care integration? An observation of collaboration between oncologists and palliative care professionals

BACKGROUND

Early palliative care interventions in oncology, as recommended by international oncology societies, promote patient understanding and support decision-making. At the same time, shared decision-making models are being developed to enhance patient participation as part of a new model of patient-physician relationship. For patients with palliative needs, this participation is essential and helps to avoid futile and aggressive treatments at the end of life. The aim of this study is to observe decision making during meetings between oncology and palliative care professionals, focusing particularly on the components of shared decision-making models, but also on the role played by palliative care professionals.

METHODS

We conducted a non-participant observation of multidisciplinary meetings and outpatient clinic activities in two Comprehensive Cancer Centres in France. Field notes were then coded using thematic content analysis. Deductive analysis was conducted using the observation grid developed from Elwyn's three-talk model.

RESULTS

Only a few elements of the different models of shared decision-making are apparent in the multidisciplinary meetings. Palliative care professionals emphasise the importance of involving patients and providing them with information about the advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options. However, patient involvement in decision-making remains difficult in daily practice. Decisions to discontinue oncological treatment are often driven by clinical and biological signs of terminal evolution rather than shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

There are still cultural and organisational barriers to actual implementation of early integrated onco-palliative care. Promotion of shared decision making can be a strong lever of change which is frequently mobilised by palliative care teams.

Patients' preferences in therapeutic decision-making in digestive oncology: a single centre cross-sectional observational study

Considering the preferences in Shared Decision Making (SDM) of patients with Digestive Cancer (DC) is crucial to ensure the quality of care. To date, there is limited information on preferences in SDM of patients with DC. The objectives of this study were to describe digestive cancer patients' preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making and to identify variables associated with these preferences. An observational prospective study in a French university cancer center has been conducted. Patients completed two questionnaires to qualify and quantify their preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making: the Control Preference Scale (CPS) and the Autonomy Preference Index (API), which is composed of the Decision Making (DM) score and the Information Seeking (IS) score. Associations between these scores and socio-demographic data, disease-related data, coping strategies (Brief-COPE), physical (QLQ-C30) and psychological (HADS) quality of life were tested. One-hundred fifteen patients returned the questionnaires. The majority of patients reported a passive (49.1%) or a collaborative (43.0%) CPS status. The mean DM score was 39.4 Variables associated with decision-making preferences were occupational status and time since diagnosis. The identification of variables associated with patients' preferences for involvement in decision-making can help make clinicians aware of patients' needs and wishes. However, it can only be determined by interviewing the patient individually.

A meta-analysis on the role older adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making

INTRODUCTION

In the complex setting of oncological treatment decision making, balancing professional guidance while respecting patient involvement can be a challenge. We set out to assess the role adults with cancer favour in treatment decision making (TDM), including differences across age groups and change over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase, for studies on role preference of (older) adults with cancer in oncological treatment decision making. A meta-analysis was conducted based on Control Preference Scale (CPS) data, a questionnaire on patient role preference in TDM.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis includes 33 studies reporting CPS data comprising 17,197 adults with cancer. Mean age was 60.6 years old for studies that specified age (24 studies, 6155 patients). During the last decade, patients' role preference shifted towards significantly more active involvement in TDM (p = 0.006). No age-dependent subgroup differences have been identified; both younger and older adults, defined as, respectively, below and above 65 years old, favour active involvement in treatment decision making.

DISCUSSION

Over time, adults with cancer have shifted towards more active role preference in treatment decision making. In current cancer care, a large majority prefers taking an active role, irrespective of age.

From the challenge of assessing autonomy to the instruments used in practice: A scoping review

Autonomy is one of the essential components to live a quality life. Monitoring this autonomy is, in effect, essential, to allow the nurses to conceive, implement and evaluate interventions aimed at its promotion or even maintenance. For this reason, this scoping review aims to map the evidence to identify and analyze the instruments used to assess the person's autonomy, which emerges from scientific production.

Methods

Scoping review based on the recommended principles by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The research was realized in the databases: Scopus (excluding MEDLINE), CINAHL complete (via EBSCO, Excluding MEDLINE), and MEDLINE (via PubMed). Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles' pertinence for the study's investigation, the extraction, and synthesis of articles.

Results

After the analysis, according to the inclusion criteria established, 34 articles were selected, allude to 7 different instruments to assess autonomy.

Conclusions

The need for further development at this level is highlighted, namely through the construction and validation of more comprehensive instruments, integrating the different components of the concept of autonomy.

Identifying and handling unbalanced baseline characteristics in a non-randomized, controlled, multicenter social care nurse intervention study for patients in advanced stages of cancer

PURPOSE

Given the psychosocial burdens patients in advanced stages of cancer face, innovative care concepts are needed. At the same time, such vulnerable patient groups are difficult to reach for participation in intervention studies and randomized patient inclusion may not be feasible. This article aims to identify systematic biases respectively selection effects occurring during the recruitment phase and to discuss their potential causes based on a non-randomized, multicenter intervention study with patients in advanced stages of cancer.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with at least one of 16 predefined cancers were recruited at four hospitals in three German cities. The effect of social care nurses' continuous involvement in acute oncology wards was measured by health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), information and participation preferences, decisional conflicts, doctor-patient communication, health literacy and symptom perception. Absolute standardized mean difference was calculated as a standardized effect size to test baseline characteristics balance between the intervention and control groups.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 362 patients, 150 in the intervention and 212 in the control group. Except for gender, both groups differed in relevant socio-demographic characteristics, e.g. regarding age and educational background. With respect to the distribution of diagnoses, the intervention group showed a higher symptom burden than the control group. Moreover, the control group reported better quality of life at baseline compared to the intervention group (52.6 points (SD 21.7); 47.8 points (SD 22.0), ASMD = 0.218, p = 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Overall, the intervention group showed more social and health vulnerability than the control group. Among other factors, the wide range of diagnoses included and structural variation between the recruiting clinics increased the risk for bias. We recommend a close, continuous monitoring of relevant social and health-related characteristics during the recruitment phase as well as the use of appropriate statistical analysis strategies for adjustment, such as propensity score methods.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00013640 ); registered on 29th December 2017.