Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting

Psychometric properties of the Danish SDM-Q-9 questionnaire for shared decision-making in patients with pelvic floor disorders and low back pain: item response theory modelling

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, involving patients in healthcare has become a focus point. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one element of patient involvement and, in many countries, including Denmark, requires culturally adapted and validated questionnaires to measure diverse patient populations' perceptions of this concept. SDM-Q-9, a widely used nine-item generic questionnaire, assesses patients' perception of nine elements during decision-making in consultations. The primary aim of this study is to assess the psychometric performance of the Danish version of the SDM-Q-9 through item response theory (IRT). Additionally, to assess the questionnaire's generic applicability among patients with pelvic floor disorders or low back pain.

METHODS

After treatment decisions, Danish patients with pelvic floor disorders or low back pain rated the level of SDM by completing the SDM-Q-9 questionnaire. Iitem response theory (the Graded Response Model by Samejima) was applied to assess each item's psychometric performance and the questionnaire's generic applicability (among others discriminative ability, precision and item differential functioning).

RESULTS

The study invited 825 patients for participation and comprised 758 patients for analysis;73% were women, with a mean age of 52 years and a mean SDM score of 3.87. Discrimination parameters (a-scores) for the model ranged from 2.39 (item 1) to 4.48 (item 8). Analysis of the item-information function curves reflected that item 8 demonstrated the highest maximum, indicating higher precision, while items 1, 2 and 9 showed the lowest maxima. Chi2-test statistics showed no significant differential item functioning at the 0.01-significance level for any item between the two patient groups. A ceiling effect was observed as most patients selected the highest score, while a low information load was identified in the SDM's upper load for each item and the overall instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

The Danish SDM-Q-9 demonstrates strong overall performance, with the ability to differentiate between the distinct levels of the underlying construct of SDM. However, the high ceiling effect is a critical limitation. While the SDM-Q-9 could serve as a generic questionnaire across samples with varying demographic composition, further exploration of these findings is warranted, particularly across patient samples encompassing more diverse decisions, e.g. patients with life-threatening diseases.

Protocol of a decisional intervention for older adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia and their caregivers: UR-GOAL 3

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic advances have allowed more adults aged ≥60 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) to receive life-prolonging treatments, with improvement in overall survival. In contrast to other cancers, the onset of AML is often sudden, high-risk treatment decisions must be made quickly, and survival is often compromised due to aging-related conditions (e.g., functional impairments). Studies have demonstrated that up to 78 % of older adults with AML and their caregivers experience significant psychological distress. Distress is associated with poor quality of life, increased healthcare utilization, and increased mortality. Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce patient and caregiver distress and is essential to achieve goal-concordant care. Therefore, interventions to alleviate distress and optimize SDM in older adults with AML and their caregivers are needed. We will conduct a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of University of Rochester-Geriatric Oncology assessment for Acute myeloid Leukemia (UR-GOAL) compared to an attention control for reducing patient distress and improving observed SDM, patient-perceived SDM, and decisional conflict.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We will recruit 300 patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed AML, their caregivers (one caregiver per patient when available), and up to 40 oncologists from four institutions: (1) Patients will view an educational video about AML diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis; complete the Best Worst Scaling values clarification process; and review a summary report of their values with tailored question prompts and resources; (2) Caregivers will view the same educational video and receive the same summary report as patients; and (3) Oncologists will review a summary report of the patient's aging-related conditions, perception of prognosis, and values. Patients, caregivers, and oncologists will then meet during clinical visits to discuss aging-related conditions, prognosis, and patient values, and reach a treatment decision. The primary outcome measure is distress (Distress Thermometer). Secondary outcome measures include observed SDM, patient perceived SDM, and decisional conflict.

DISCUSSION

This study will address significant knowledge gaps related to reducing distress and decisional conflict and improving SDM in older adults with AML. If successful, this research will inform future decisional interventions for a broader group of patients.

Decision regret and satisfaction with shared decision-making in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic surgery often does not provide long-term survival in patients with cancer or consistently improve symptoms in benign disease. This study aimed to assess decision regret and satisfaction with the decision-making process among patients who underwent pancreatectomy.

METHODS

This study administered the Brehaut Decision Regret Scale (DRS), 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) to all patients who underwent elective pancreatectomies from 2021 to 2023. Decision regret was defined as a DRS of >25. In addition, this study evaluated SDM-Q-9 responses in patients with and without regret.

RESULTS

A total of 143 patients were included in this study, of whom 71 patients (49.6%) completed the distributed surveys. Demographics, pathology, and major complication rates were similar between responders and nonresponders. The indications for surgery were malignancy (67.6%) and benign disease (32.4%). Decision regret after pancreatic surgery was reported in 18.3% of patients. Patients who experienced regret were younger (50.8 ± 18.7 years [younger group] vs 62.0 ± 14.9 years [older group]; P = .03), more likely to have benign disease (39.1% [benign disease] vs 8.3% [malignant disease]; P < .01), underwent a distal pancreatectomy (34.5% [distal pancreatectomy] vs 7.7% [pancreaticoduodenectomy]; P = .02), or experienced a major complication (36.8% [major complication] vs 11.5% [no major complication]; P = .03). Patients with regret had lower global health (57.1 ± 20.1 [patients with regret] vs 76.2 ± 22.2 [patients without regret]; P < .01) and social function scores (61.5 ± 31.5 [patients with regret] vs 77.6 ± 22.0 [patients without regret]; P = .03) on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Patients with regret were less satisfied with the shared decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

Strong decision regret was reported in 18% of patients who underwent pancreatectomy. Younger age, distal pancreatectomy, benign indications, and major postoperative complications were associated with regret. Data from the SDM-9 highlight areas for potential improvement to help patients make decisions aligned with their goals of care.

The role of shared decision-making in enhancing patient experience: Insights from a cohort of curative head and neck cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) is on the NHS policy agenda, and the preferred model for preference-sensitive decisions. This study establishes baseline patient-perceived SDM in a radical head and neck cohort, and explores patients' views on SDM in a large, specialist trust.

METHODS

An SDM questionnaire was distributed to all radical head and neck radiotherapy patients (N = 165), June-December 2023. This combined a well-validated instrument for measuring SDM from the patient perspective, SDM-Q-9, with additional questions exploring patient views. Thematic analysis was used to construct and interpret themes.

RESULTS

65/165 (39%) questionnaires were returned. SDM-Q-9 mean standardised score was 78.6 (SD 26.3). There was a moderate ceiling effect (26%). Scores were not sensitive to sex (p = 0.64) or age (ρ = 0.1). Higher levels of SDM were perceived by participants who stated SDM was very important (51/65, 79%) than somewhat or not at all important (82.4 vs. 62.7; p = 0.02; Cohen d = 0.75). Individuals who discussed their personal priorities with the clinician (46/65, 70.8%), were more likely to be very satisfied with their involvement in SDM (89.1% vs. 52.9%). Thematic analysis generated three themes: Control, Desire for Transparency and Understanding, and Doctor as the Expert.

CONCLUSION

Patient-perceived SDM levels are high for head and neck patients. Participants who value SDM also perceive higher levels of SDM. Patient satisfaction increases when individuals discuss their personal priorities. The modest response rate and self-selection bias affect the generalisability of the results. Only radiotherapy patients were included; those who chose alternative treatment may perceive different levels of SDM. The moderate ceiling effect may limit the use of SDM-Q-9 to measure impact of future interventions to improve SDM.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

SDM-Q-9 should be combined with an objective, observer measure of SDM.

Developing practical strategies to reduce addiction-related stigma and discrimination in public addiction treatment centers: a mixed-methods study protocol

BACKGROUND

People with substance use disorders (SUDs) have restricted engagement with health-care facilities and describe repeated experiences of stigma, discrimination, and mistreatment when receiving care at health-care and public addiction treatment centers (PATCs). The purpose of the current study is to design practical cultural-based strategies to reduce addiction-related stigma and discrimination at PATCs.

METHODS/DESIGN

The present study will use a mixed-methods design with an explanatory sequential approach. Phase 1 of the study will combine a cluster sampling technique combined with a cross-sectional survey of Patients with Substance Use Disorders (SUDs) in Mazandaran, Iran. A total of three hundred and sixty individuals with SUDs will be selected to assess their experiences of stigma and factors predicting stigma. Phase 2 will involve qualitative study aimed at exploring participants' perceptions regarding the aspects and determinants of their stigma experience. The participants will include two groups: people with SUDs and staff/health-care providers at PATCs. Participants for Phase 2 will be purposively sampled from those involved in Phase 1.Qualitative data will be collected using in-depth semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using content analysis with a conventional approach. Phase 3 will focus on the development of new strategies to reduce the experiences of stigma among people with SUDs at PATCs. These strategies will be formulated based on the findings derived from the qualitative and quantitative data obtained in Phases 1 and 2, a comprehensive review of the literature, and expert opinions gathered using the nominal group technique.

DISCUSSION

This is one of the few studies conducted within the domain of stigma pertaining to individuals who use drugs within the context of Iranian culture employing a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to develop culturally sensitive strategies to reduce such problems from the perspective of Iranian people who use drugs. It is anticipated that the study will yield evidence-based insights and provide practical strategies to reduce the stigma and discrimination experienced by people who use drugs at PATCs. Such outcomes are important for informing policymaking and designing healthcare interventions tailored to the needs of individuals grappling with substance dependency.

The Effect of Decision Aid on Satisfaction With Decision and Anxiety Among Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Results

BACKGROUND

Most women in the face of stressful situations such as risk of a cancer diagnosis (abnormal Papanicolaou smear results) need guidance to choose the appropriate method to follow the diagnosis process, but few studies have identified appropriate interventions to support these women.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of decision aid on anxiety and satisfaction with decisions (SWD) regarding the type of follow-up method after receiving an abnormal Papanicolaou smear result.

METHODS

This interventional study was conducted on women referred to the oncology clinic in Tabriz, Iran. Women were assigned to the intervention (n = 27) and control groups (n = 27) in a ratio of 1:1 using blocked randomization. The intervention group received a decision aid booklet. Participants in both groups completed questionnaires assessing demographic and obstetric characteristics, anxiety, SWD, and shared decision-making before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

The mean score for SWD in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group after the intervention (median, 6.43 with 95% confidence interval of 3.11-7.76; P = .03). There was no significant difference between groups in the mean score of anxiety after intervention (median, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 2.70; P = .19).

CONCLUSION

A decision aid can increase SWD among women with abnormal results in their cervical cancer screening.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

It is recommended that healthcare providers use decision aid tools to support and guide patients.

Survey of patients and physicians on shared decision-making in treatment selection in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key component of patient-centered healthcare. SDM is particularly pertinent in the relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) setting, in which numerous treatment options can present challenges for identifying optimal care. However, few studies have assessed the extent and relevance of SDM and patient-centered communication (PCC) in RRMM. To describe treatment decision-making patterns between physicians and patients in the RRMM setting, we conducted online surveys of patients and physicians in the USA to compare their perspectives on the process of treatment decision-making. We analyzed the surveys descriptively. Two hundred hematologists/oncologists and 200 patients with RRMM receiving second-line (n = 89), third-line (n = 65), and fourth-line (n = 46) therapy participated. Top treatment goals for physicians and patients included extending overall survival (among 76% and 83% of physicians and patients, respectively) and progression-free survival (among 54% and 77% of physicians and patients, respectively), regardless of the number of prior relapses. Thirty percent of physicians believed patients preferred a shared approach to treatment decision-making, while 40% of patients reported most often preferring a shared role in treatment decision-making. One-fourth of patients most often preferred physicians to make the final treatment decision after seriously considering their opinion. Thirty-two percent of physicians and 16% of patients recalled ≥3 treatment options presented at first relapse. Efficacy was a primary treatment goal for patients and physicians. Discrepancies in their perceptions during RRMM treatment decision-making exist, indicating that communication tools are needed to facilitate SDM and PCC.

Shared decision-making and person-centred care in Sweden: Exploring coproduction of health and social care services

In Sweden the health system is nationally regulated and locally provided by 21 regions and 290 municipalities. To meet the shifting paradigm, where the person is viewed as a co-producer of health and care, Sweden has laws, regulations and policies which support the patient as an active partner in the communication with professionals in the system. Coproduction, person-centred care and shared decision making contribute jointly to the paradigm shift. Principles of human dignity and equity must be supported nationally and enacted in the decentralized, regional provision of care. Infrastructures exist or are under development which can support and strengthen care that is co-produced and based in a person-centred philosophy and approach, where shared decision making becomes a reality in practice. A Knowledge management system together with National Quality registries have the potential to form a co-produced, person-centred learning health system, where patients, and next of kin and professionals are included as partners. The joint integration of Shared decision making, Person-centre care and Coproduction into the Swedish healthcare system now looks like a possible way to realize the emerging paradigm.

Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires

OBJECTIVES

We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement.

METHODS

Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later.

RESULTS

In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice.

Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness

We analyzed (1) the correspondence of patient and clinician perceived patient involvement in decision making and ratings made by independent observer's independent ratings, as well as (2), factors associated with patient-perceived involvement, among patients seeking hand specialty care. During 63 visits, the patient, their hand specialist, and 2 independent observers each rated patient involvement in decision making using the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire for patients and clinicians, and the 5-item observing patient involvement scale (OPTION-5). We also measured health literacy (Newest Vital Sign), patient and visit characteristics (gender, age, race, years of education, occupation, marital status, and family present). There was no correlation (ρ = 0.17; P = .17) between patient (median 42, IQR 36-44.5) and clinician (38, IQR 35-43) ratings of patient involvement in decision making. Independently rated patient involvement correlated moderately with a specialist (ρ = 0.35, P <.01), but not patient (ρ = 0.22, P = .08) ratings. The finding that patient perception of their involvement in decision making has little or no relationship to independently rated clinician communication effectiveness and effort, suggests that other aspects of the encounter-such as empathy and trust-may merit investigation as mediators of the patient agency.

Validation of the Malay, English, and Chinese Translations of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in Breast Cancer Patients Making Treatment Decisions

This study aims to test the psychometric properties of the Malay, English, and Chinese 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in breast cancer patients making treatment decisions. The original German SDM-Q-9 was translated to Malay using the back-translation method. A total of 222 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients making treatment decisions were sampled conveniently from three breast clinics between August 2015 and February 2016. A total of 66 patients answered the SDM-Q-9 in Malay, 87 in English, and 69 in Chinese. Data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS software. SDM-Q-9 demonstrated good reliability in the three translations. All the items correlated well except for Item 1 in English. The factor loadings were within acceptable range except for Item 1 in Malay, Items 1 and 2 in English, and Items 7 and 9 in Chinese SDM-Q-9. However, no items were deleted in accordance with experts' opinions and the previous SDM-Q-9 validation studies. The Malay, English, and Chinese SDM-Q-9 demonstrated good reliability and validity.

Shared decision making, physicians' explanations, and treatment satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients

Background

Hormone therapy is one option for some types of prostate cancer. Shared decision making (SDM) is important in the decision making process, but SDM between prostate cancer patients receiving hormone therapy and physicians is not fully understood. This study tested hypotheses: “Patients’ perception of SDM is associated with treatment satisfaction, mediated by satisfaction with physicians’ explanations and perceived effective decision making” and “The amount of information provided to patients by physicians on diseases and treatment is associated with treatment satisfaction mediated by patients’ perceived SDM and satisfaction with physicians’ explanations.”

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online panel via a private research company in Japan. The participants in this study were patients registered with the panel who had received or were currently receiving hormone therapy for prostate cancer and physicians registered with the panel who were treating patients with prostate cancer. Measures used in this study included a nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, levels of satisfaction with physicians’ explanations and treatment satisfaction, and effective decision making for patients (feeling the choice is informed, value-based, likely to be implemented and expressing satisfaction with the choice), and a Shared Decision Making Questionnaire for Doctors. The hypotheses were examined using path analysis.

Results

In total, 124 patients and 150 physicians were included in the analyses. In keeping with our hypotheses, perceived SDM significantly correlated with the physicians’ explanations and perceived effective decision making for patients, and satisfaction with physicians’ explanations and perceived effective decision making for patients were both related to treatment satisfaction. Although the amount of information provided to patients was correlated with the perceived SDM, it was indirectly related to their satisfaction with physicians’ explanations.

Conclusions

When physicians encourage patients to be actively involved in making decisions about treatment through the SDM process while presenting a wide range of information at the start of hormone therapy, patients’ effective decision making and physicians’ explanations may be improved; consequently, the patients’ overall treatment satisfaction may be improved. Physicians who treat patients with prostate cancer may have underestimated the importance of SDM before starting hormone therapy, even greater extent than patients.

Needs assessment for a decision support tool in oral cancer requiring major resection and reconstruction: a mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Advanced oral cancer and its ensuing treatment engenders significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are often elderly with significant comorbidities. Toxicities associated with surgical resection can be devastating and they are often highlighted by patients as impactful. Given the potential for suboptimal oncological and functional outcomes in this vulnerable patient population, promotion and performance of shared decision making (SDM) is crucial.Decision aids (DAs) are useful instruments for facilitating the SDM process by presenting patients with up-to-date evidence regarding risks, benefits and the possible postoperative course. Importantly, DAs also help elicit and clarify patient values and preferences. The use of DAs in cancer treatment has been shown to reduce decisional conflict and increase SDM. No DAs for oral cavity cancer have yet been developed.This study endeavours to answer the question: Is there a patient or surgeon driven need for development and implementation of a DA for adult patients considering major surgery for oral cancer?

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is the first step in a multiphase investigation of SDM during major head and neck surgery. It is a multi-institutional convergent parallel mixed-methods needs assessment study. Patients and surgeon dyads will be recruited to complete questionnaires related to their perception of the SDM process (nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire, SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) and to take part in semistructured interviews. Patients will also complete questionnaires examining decisional self-efficacy (Ottawa Decision Self-Efficacy Scale) and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Questionnaires will be completed at time of recruitment and will be used to assess the current level of SDM, self-efficacy and conflict in this setting. Thematic analysis will be used to analyse transcripts of interviews. Quantitative and qualitative components of the study will be integrated through triangulation, with matrix developed to promote visualisation of the data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the research ethics boards of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (Halifax, Nova Scotia) and the University Health Network (Toronto, Ontario). Dissemination to clinicians will be through traditional approaches and creation of a head and neck cancer SDM website. Dissemination to patients will include a section within the website, patient advocacy groups and postings within clinical environments.

Shared Decision-Making and Medicolegal Aspects: Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care in India

It is often difficult for people with cancer to make decisions for their care. The aim of this review is to understand the importance of shared decisionmaking (SDM) in Indian clinical scenario and identify the gaps when compared to practices in the Western world. A systematic search (2000-2019) was executed in Medline and Google Scholar using predefined keywords. Of the approximate 400 articles retrieved, 43 articles (Indian: 5; Western: 38) were selected for literature review. Literature review revealed the paucity of information on SDM in India compared to the Western world data. This may contribute to patientreported physical or psychological harms, life disruptions, or unnecessary financial costs. Western world data demonstrate the involvement and sharing of information by both patient and physician, collective efforts of the two to build consensus for preferred treatment. In India, involvement of patients in the planning for treatment is largely limited to tertiary care centers, academic institutes, or only when the cost of therapy is high. In addition, cultural beliefs and prejudices impact the extent of participation and engagement of a patient in disease management. Communication failures have been found to strongly correlate with the medicolegal malpractice litigations. Research is needed to explore ways to how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice. India has a high unmet need towards SDM in diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Physicians need to involve patients or their immediate family members in decision making, to make it a patient-centric approach as well. SDM enforces to avoid uninformed decisionmaking or a lack of trust in the treating physician's knowledge and skills. Physician and patient education, development of tools and guiding policies, widespread implementation, and periodic assessments may advance the practice of SDM.

A Qualitative Analysis of Oncology Patient Awareness of Medication Shortages and Their Preferences for How Shortages Should Be Managed

PURPOSE:

Medication shortages in US hospitals are ongoing, widespread, and frequently involve antineoplastic and supportive medications used in cancer care. The ways shortages are managed and the ways provider-patient communication takes place are heterogeneous, but the related preferences of oncology patients are undefined. This study sought to qualitatively evaluate patient preferences.

METHODS:

A cross-sectional, semi-structured interview study was conducted from January to June 2019. Participants were adult oncology inpatients who received primary cancer care at the University of Chicago, had undergone treatment within 2 years, and had 1 or more previous hospitalizations during that period. Participants (n = 54) were selected consecutively from alternating hematology and oncology services. The primary outcome was thematic saturation across the domains of awareness of medication shortages, principle preferences regarding decision makers, preferences regarding allocation of therapy drugs, and allocation-related communication.

RESULTS:

Thematic saturation was reached after 39 participants completed the study procedures (mean age, 59.6 years [standard deviation, 14.5 years]; men made up 61.5% of the study population [mean age, 24 years]; response rate, 72.0%). In all, 18% of participants were aware of institutional medication shortages. Patients preferred having multiple decision makers for allocating medications in the event of a shortage. A majority of patients named oncologists (100%), ethicists (92%), non-oncology physicians (77%), and pharmacists (64%) as their preferred decision makers. Participants favored allocation of drugs based on their efficacy (normalized weighted average, 1.3), and they also favored prioritizing people who were already receiving treatment (1.8), younger patients (2.0), sicker patients (3.1), and those presenting first for treatment (5.3). Most participants preferred preferred disclosure of supportive care medication shortages (74%) and antineoplastic medication shortages (79%) for equivalent substitutions.

CONCLUSION:

In a tertiary-care center with medication shortages, few oncologic inpatients were aware of shortages. Participants preferred having multiple decision makers involved in principle-driven allocation of scarce medications. Disclosure was preferred when their usual medications needed to be substituted with equivalent alternatives. These preliminary data suggest that preferences do not align with current management practices for medication shortages.