1
|
Henselmans I, van Laarhoven HWM, de Haes HCJM, Tokat M, Engelhardt EG, van Maarschalkerweerd PEA, Kunneman M, Ottevanger PB, Dohmen SE, Creemers GJ, Sommeijer DW, de Vos FYFL, Smets EMA. Training for Medical Oncologists on Shared Decision-Making About Palliative Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Oncologist 2018; 24:259-265. [PMID: 29959285 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2018] [Accepted: 04/26/2018] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. This study examines the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) training for medical oncologists on observed SDM in standardized patient assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS A randomized controlled trial comparing training with standard practice was conducted. Medical oncologists and oncologists-in-training (n = 31) participated in a video-recorded, standardized patient assessment at baseline (T0) and after 4 months (T1, after training). The training was based on a four-stage SDM model and consisted of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 hours each), a booster session (1.5 hours), and a consultation card. The primary outcome was observed SDM as assessed with the Observing Patient Involvement scale (OPTION12) coded by observers blinded for arm. Secondary outcomes were observed SDM per stage, communication skills, and oncologists' satisfaction with communication. RESULTS The training had a significant and large effect on observed SDM in the simulated consultations (Cohen's f = 0.62) and improved observed SDM behavior in all four SDM stages (f = 0.39-0.72). The training improved oncologists' information provision skills (f = 0.77), skills related to anticipating/responding to emotions (f = 0.42), and their satisfaction with the consultation (f = 0.53). CONCLUSION Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves their performance in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such training on SDM in clinical practice and on patient outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. Hence, applying the premises of shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. SDM is increasingly advocated based on the ethical imperative to provide patient-centered care and the increasing evidence for beneficial patient outcomes. Few studies examined the effectiveness of SDM training in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that SDM training (10 hours) improves oncologists' performance in consultations with standardized patients. The next step is to examine the effect of training on oncologists' performance and patient outcomes in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inge Henselmans
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
- Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hanneke C J M de Haes
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Meltem Tokat
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen G Engelhardt
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marleen Kunneman
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Petronella B Ottevanger
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Serge E Dohmen
- Department of Internal Medicine, BovenIJ Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Geert-Jan Creemers
- Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Cancer Institute, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Dirkje W Sommeijer
- Department of Medical Oncology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Internal Medicine, Flevo Hospital, Almere, The Netherlands
| | - Filip Y F L de Vos
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen M A Smets
- Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Relevant databases were sought using the terms "cancer," "second opinion," and "self-initiated." Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers. RESULTS Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative (n = 4), mixed (n = 1), or quantitative (n = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%-88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients' primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%-51%. DISCUSSION Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. The Oncologist 2017;22:1197-1211 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although cancer patients increasingly seek a second opinion, the benefits of this process remain unclear. Results of this systematic review suggest that the available studies on this topic are highly variable in both methodology and quality. Moreover, reported rates for a second opinion (1%-88%) as well as for disagreement between the first and second opinion (2%-51%) range widely. The primary motivations of patients are a need for certainty, lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Additional research should evaluate how unnecessary second opinions might be avoided. Practical suggestions are provided for oncologists to optimize second opinions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marij A Hillen
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Joost G Daams
- Medical Library, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ellen M A Smets
- Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|