Factors involved in treatment decision making for women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ: A qualitative study

Age and race/ethnicity differences in decisional conflict in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ

PURPOSE

Women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) face confusion and uncertainty about treatment options. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are differences in decisional conflict about treatment by age and race/ethnicity.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of women (age ≥ 18) diagnosed with DCIS enrolled at Kaiser Permanente of Southern California. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) measured personal perceptions of decision uncertainty, values clarity, and effective decision-making. We used a multivariable regression to study whether age, race, and ethnicity were associated with patient-reported DCS.

RESULTS

45% (N = 1395) of women who received the online survey, participated. The mean age was 56 (± 9.6) years, the majority were white. Compared to women younger than 50, women aged 60-69 reported lower overall DCS scores (-5.4; 95% CI -1.5 to -9.3). Women > 70 had lower values clarity scores (-9.0; 95% CI -2.8 to -15.2) about their treatment compared to women aged 50-59 and 60-69 (-7.1; 95% CI -2.9 to -11.3 and - 7.2; 95% CI -2.9 to -11.5) and likewise, lower effective decision-making scores (-5.4; 95% CI -1.7 to -9.2 and - 5.2; 95% CI -1.4 to -9.0) compared to women < 50. Compared to whites, blacks reported lower decision conflict (-4.4; 95% CI 0.04 to -8.8) and lower informed decision (-5.2; 95% CI -0.18 to -10.3) about DCIS treatment.

CONCLUSION

Younger women reported higher decisional conflict about DCIS treatment, compared to older women (> 70). Age based tailored discussions about treatment options, health education, and supportive decision-making interventions/tools may reduce decision conflict in future DCIS patients.

TRADE REGISTRATION

The IRB number is 10678.

Experiences of Using Patient Decision Aids for Decisions About Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Aggregation of Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Inconsistent results have been found regarding the effects of patient decision aids (PtDAs) in supporting patients' decision-making for cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative meta-aggregation presents the experiences of using PtDAs, as perceived by adult patients with cancer, and highlights the components they perceived as important.

METHODS

We used the 3-phase process for meta-aggregation suggested by Joanna Briggs Institute to identify published studies with qualitative evidence from CINAHL, Ovid-MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases. The selected studies involved adults with various cancer diagnoses. The phenomenon of interest and the context for this review were people's experiences of using PtDAs for decisions about first-line cancer treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included. The authors achieved consensus on 5 synthesized findings about PtDAs: (1) improved understanding of treatment options and patient values and preferences; (2) served as platforms for expressing concerns, obtaining support, and having meaningful conversations with healthcare providers; (3) facilitated active personal and family engagement in decision-making; (4) enabled recall of information and evaluation of satisfaction with decisions; and (5) presented potential structural barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used qualitative evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of PtDAs and identify aspects patients with cancer find particularly beneficial.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses play a crucial role in supporting patients and family caregivers throughout the decision-making process for cancer treatment. Patient decision aids that balance complex treatment information with simple language and illustrations or graphs can enhance patients' comprehension. The integration of values clarification exercises into care can further improve patients' decisional outcomes.