Search

Introduction: An understanding of the long-term psychosocial impact of paediatric haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases is needed to optimize pre-HSCT counselling, supportive care and long-term follow-up programmes after HSCT for this group of patients and caregivers. Methods: This qualitative study included 14 patients who underwent transplantation for a nonmalignant disease during childhood. In-depth interviews were held online to explore patients' perspectives on the long-term psychosocial impact of HSCT on their lives. The results were analysed based on the Grounded Theory approach. Results: Patients' median age at the time of the interview was 19 years (range: 14-49), and the median years after HSCT was 12 years (range: 3-33). Four main themes were identified: (1) doing okay, (2) experiencing persistent involvement with healthcare services, (3) influence on relationships with loved ones and (4) impact on the patient's life course. Subthemes extracted were doing okay, feeling of being cured, health limitations, sense of vulnerability, ongoing connection to the hospital, acceptance, friendship, family relations, development of own identity, not taking life for granted, social development, impact on (school) career and thinking about the future. Conclusions: Patients reported active coping strategies and resilience after this high-impact treatment. The data highlight the need for patient-adjusted supportive care, indicating more need for supportive care in the long-term outpatient clinic. Patient Contribution This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were presented during a patient conference day.

Aims: To analyse the performance of a Shared Decision Making (SDM) intervention, we assessed perceived and experienced SDM in General Practitioners (GPs) and patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).Methods: Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial (cRCT) testing the effect of a decision aid. Opinions and experienced role regarding SDM were assessed in 72 patients and 18 GPs with the SDM-Q-9 (range 0-45) and Control Preferences Scale (CPS, 0-5), and observed SDM with the OPTION5 (0-20). SDM at baseline was compared to 24 months' follow-up using paired t-tests.Results: At baseline, perceived levels of SDM did not significantly differ between GPs and patients with T2DM (difference of 2.3, p = 0.24). At follow-up, mean patients' perceived level of SDM was 7.9 lower compared to baseline (p < 0.01), whereas GPs' opinions had not changed significantly. After both visits, mean CPS scores differed significantly between patients and GPs. OPTION5 scores ranged between 6 and 20.Conclusion: Patients and GPs perceived similar baseline levels of SDM. Two years later, patients perceived less SDM, while GPs did not change their opinion. SDM was appropriate immediately after training, but perhaps GPs fell back in old habits over time. We recommend repeated SDM training.

ObjectivesTo identify what patient-related characteristics have been reported to be associated with the occurrence of shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment.DesignScoping review.Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed articles in English or Dutch reporting on associations between patient-related characteristics and the occurrence of SDM for actual treatment decisions.Information sourcesCOCHRANE Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published until 25 March 2019.ResultsThe search yielded 5289 hits of which 53 were retained. Multiple categories of patient characteristics were identified: (1) sociodemographic characteristics (eg, gender), (2) general health and clinical characteristics (eg, symptom severity), (3) psychological characteristics and coping with illness (eg, self-efficacy) and (4) SDM style or preference. Many characteristics showed no association or unclear relationships with SDM occurrence. For example, for female gender positive, negative and, most frequently, non-significant associations were seen.ConclusionsA large variety of patient-related characteristics have been studied, but for many the association with SDM occurrence remains unclear. The results will caution often-made assumptions about associations and provide an important step to target effective interventions to foster SDM with all patients.

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. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. CC_BY_4.0

Background Informing patients with cancer about the possible implications of prospective treatment is a crucial yet challenging task. Unfortunately, patients’ recall of medical information is generally poor and their information needs are not met. Effective information giving entails that oncologists help patients understand and recall the implications of their treatment, meanwhile fostering a trusting physician-patient relationship. Communication strategies that are often suggested to be effective are structuring and tailoring (cognition-oriented) but also are oncologists’ expressions of caring or empathy (affect-oriented). Objective The aim of this study is to provide evidence concerning the pathways linking physician communication to (improved) consultation outcomes for patients. More specifically, the aim is to determine the effects of information structuring and information tailoring, combined with physician caring, on information recall, satisfaction with information, and trust in the physician (primary objective) and on symptom distress (secondary objective). Methods A randomized controlled trial, systematically testing the effects of information structuring and information tailoring, each combined with caring, in 2 video-vignette experiments (2×2 and 2×2×2 design). Using an online survey platform, participants will be randomly allocated (blinded) to 1 of 12 conditions in which they are asked to view a video vignette (intervention) in which an oncologist discusses a treatment plan for malignant lymphoma with a patient. The independent variables of interest are systematically varied across conditions. The outcome measures are assessed in a survey, using validated instruments. Study participants are (former) patients with cancer and their relatives recruited via online panels and patient organizations. This protocol discusses the trial design, including the video-vignette design, intervention pretesting, and a pilot study. Results Data collection has now been completed, and preliminary analyses will be available in Spring 2019. A total of 470 participants completed the first part of the survey and were randomized to receive the intervention. Conclusions The results of the proposed trial will provide evidence concerning the pathways linking physician information, giving skills to (improved) consultation outcomes for patients. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR6153; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6022 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/76xVV9xC8). International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/12453

To assess the occurrence of questions that foster shared decision making, in particular cancer patients' understanding of treatment decisions and oncologists' understanding of patients' priorities, during consultations in which preference-sensitive decisions are discussed. Specifically, (a) regarding patient understanding, do oncologists ask about patients' preexisting knowledge, information preferences, and understanding and do patients and companions ask about the disease and treatment, and (b) regarding patient priorities, do oncologists ask about patients' treatment- and decision-related preferences and do patients and companions ask about the decision? Audiotaped pretreatment consultations of 100 cancer patients with 32 oncologists about (neo)adjuvant treatment were coded and analyzed to document question type, topic, and initiative. The oncologists ascertained prior knowledge in 50 patients, asked 24 patients about preferred (probability) information, and invited questions from 56 patients. The oncologists asked 32 patients about treatment preferences and/or for consent. Respectively, one-third and one-fifth of patients and companions asked about treatment benefits compared with three-quarters of them who asked about treatment harms and/or procedures. It would be helpful to patients if oncologists more often assessed patients' existing knowledge to tailor their information provision. Also, patients could receive treatment recommendations that better fit their personal situation if oncologists collected information on patients' views about treatments. Moreover, by educating patients to ask about treatment alternatives, benefits, and harms, patients may gain a better understanding of the choice they have

In this thesis, we aimed to develop and validate a patient and a physician questionnaire to measure the shared decision making (SDM) process in oncology. We identified SDM measurement challenges: there is limited evidence on measurement properties, patients’ role is not assessed while it is present in SDM models, patients and healthcare professionals have been involved only to a limited extent in the development of SDM measurement instruments, and a reflective measurement model is often assumed, while a formative might be more appropriate. The aim of this thesis was therefore to develop and validate questionnaires to assess the SDM process in oncology from both the patient and the physician viewpoints. We chose the oncology setting because it is a setting in which patients often face preference-sensitive decisions, and in which most patients prefer an active or collaborative role in treatment decision making. To inform the development and validation process of our questionnaires, we used the original Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and we wrote two reviews: one on existing SDM measurement instruments and one on existing SDM models. The iSHARE questionnaires shows adequate measurement properties

The objective of the work presented in this thesis is to assess information provision about adjuvant systemic therapy during consultations between early-stage breast cancer patients and medical oncologists in general. In this era of personalized medicine, prediction tools (e.g., Adjuvant!) are becoming an integral part of information provision during patient consultations. However, evidence is lacking about a) how prevalent the use of such tools is during patient consultations, and b) whether and how the use of such tools influences information provision. Therefore, this thesis in addition to assessing the availability and the quality of prediction tools for the early-stage breast cancer setting, also zooms in on the use of such tools during patient consultations and their impact on the content of consultations.

In this thesis, we aimed to gain insight in the process of shared decision making in the setting of adjuvant cancer treatments. We observed clinician-patient consultations in daily clinical practice, and developed a core list of information that should be provided in the pre-treatment consultation. We showed that the three key steps of shared decision making are followed to a limited extent. Choice awareness is rarely created in pre-treatment consultations on (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment, and the option of foregoing these treatments is omitted consistently (Step 1). There is large variation in information provision on possible treatment strategies. Patients tend to overestimate the beneficial effect of treatment, and to underestimate the probability of harms (Step 2). Finally, patients' values and treatment preferences are elicited in only a minority of consultations. If patients voice their values or treatment preferences, or if the oncologist indicates to consider these, patients perceive a significant more active role in the decision making process (Step 3). Our results show that opportunities are missed to engage patients in a process of shared decision making. Small changes in doctor-patient communication can facilitate patients' involvement in deciding about treatment.