Search

Objectives To assess (1) the clinical issues addressed during the medical encounter; (2) the feasibility of the process of shared decision-making in clinical practice and (3) patients’ desires concerning the question of ‘who should take the decision in breast cancer treatments?’ Design Qualitative pilot study based on clinical encounters using decision boards and information booklets. Setting Centre Leon Berard, a comprehensive cancer centre in the Rhone-Alpes region of France. Participants One breast cancer surgeon and 22 breast cancer patients. Main outcome measures Analysis of patients’ reactions to a shared decision-making process concerning surgery and chemotherapy, and analysis of its practical feasibility (i.e. duration of the consultations). Results (1) Twenty-one patients participated in the decision regarding surgery; all chose conservative treatment; 15 patients had their own say about chemotherapy (nine chose no chemotherapy, six chose chemotherapy). (2) Participating in treatment choice generated anxiety for a majority of patients. Some were dissatisfied because they had to make a choice and consequently to give up the other option. Finally, some were uncertain about making the right choice. Nevertheless, most were satisfied with the information given and the possibility of participating to the treatment decision-making process. (3) The total duration of the entire process of shared decision-making is consistent with the time spent with patients with such a severe disease. Discussion/conclusion Most of the patients expressed their satisfaction regarding the possibility to participate in treatment decision-making, knowing that offering treatment choice is very unusual in France. From this pilot study it appears that shared decision-making is feasible in clinical practice. Nevertheless, a quantitative study based on a large sample of patients is necessary to: (1) confirm this hypothesis, (2) ensure that patients are willing to participate in their treatment decision-making, and (3) measure the potential benefits related to this participation.

In developed countries, the physician-patient relationship is moving from a paternalistic model to new decision-making models that take patient preferences into account. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a Decision Board (DB) and to test its acceptability in a French Regional Cancer Centre regarding the decision on whether or not to use chemotherapy after surgery in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. This paper presents the development process for this instrument and reports the pretesting phase, as well as the corresponding results. METHODS: A working group was created with oncologists, psychologists and economists. Following the first phase, i.e. the development process, a first version of the instrument was presented to health professionals. Their feedback led to important modifications of the instrument. The DB was then presented to experienced patients, which resulted in slight changes. The second phase consisted of pretesting the comprehension, internal and across-time consistency of the DB on healthy volunteers. RESULTS: The DB was pretested in a group of 40 healthy volunteers. Eighteen respondents chose chemotherapy and 22 chose not to have chemotherapy. Comprehension rates were very high (>/=87.5%). Internal consistency was assessed considering option attitudes based on outcomes and option attitudes based on process. Women shifted their choices in a predictable way. Across-time consistency was appraised using the test-retest method with Visual Analog Scales. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.97. DISCUSSION-CONCLUSION: Due to cultural differences, the DB developed in our French Cancer Centre is quite different from the DBs previously developed elsewhere. Our instrument showed good comprehension and consistency properties, which are corroborated by the DB literature. Whether our DB is acceptable for patients with breast cancer must still be tested. Patients' reactions will tell us which type of decision-making model is at work. Further research is needed in order to explore the shared decision-making process and clarify the concept.