Search

Objective: We examined whether patients reporting not having adequate time to make a treatment decision is associated with discordance between their preferred and perceived involvement in decision making.Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study involving Australian outpatients attending five medical or radiation oncology units. Logistic regression modelling was conducted.Results: Four hundred twenty-three patients participated. Patients who reported not having adequate time to make their last important treatment decision had significantly higher odds of experiencing discordance between their preferred and perceived involvement in this decision, compared to those patients who reported having adequate time (OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.01-7.55; p = 0.048).Conclusion: Patients should receive adequate time when making cancer treatment decisions. This may help patients "digest" and use the information they received, and become involved in decision making, to the extent they desire. Future research should further investigate what patients consider adequate time for decision making.Practice Implications: Doctors should assess patients' preferences for the amount of time they prefer when making a treatment decision and tailor care accordingly. Offering patients two consultations with some time to think about their options in-between these consultations may be one method in achieving this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To explore the experiences of haematological cancer outpatients in obtaining information about their cancer and its treatment.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of adult haematological cancer outpatients was conducted. Participants completed two pen-and-paper questionnaires: the first examined demographics and disease characteristics; the second, completed four weeks later, asked about the cancer information received. Participants indicated whether they received the information they needed about medical procedures and self-management, experiences regarding doctor-patient communication, and self-efficacy in seeking information and support. Where possible, items were derived from Australian psychosocial cancer care guidelines.Results: Two hundred and ninety-three (84%) patients consented to participate, with 170 (58%) completing both questionnaires. Most participants reported receiving information in accordance with guidelines. Areas identified as requiring improvement included difficulty recalling information (28%); information overload (26%); insufficient opportunity to ask questions (23%); and insufficient information about managing anxiety related to medical procedures (20%).Conclusion: While many haematological cancer patients report receiving adequate information, there is room for improvement. Implementation of evidence-based strategies, such as decision aids or audiotapes of the consultation, may help to improve information experiences.Practice Implications: A patient-centred approach to information provision is essential for ensuring information addresses the needs and preferences of the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We examined whether not having been asked by their clinicians about how involved cancer patients would like to be in their treatment decisions is related to discordance between patients’ preferred and perceived involvement in treatment decision‐making. This was a cross‐sectional survey of adult cancer patients recruited from five medical and radiation oncology outpatient clinics in Australia. Discordance of patients’ preferred and perceived decision‐making roles was assessed via an adapted version of the Control Preferences Scale. Logistic regression modelling was conducted to assess the relationship between role discordance and whether patients were not asked but wanted to be asked about how involved they would like to be in deciding on their treatment. Of 423 study participants, almost a third (n = 128, 31%) reported discordance between their preferred and perceived involvement in their treatment decisions. Of those reporting discordance, 72% (n = 92) were less involved than they would have liked to have been. Not being asked about their preferences for involvement in treatment decisions, despite wanting this, was associated with discordance between patients’ preferred and perceived involvement in treatment decision‐making (p < 0.04). To achieve patient‐centred care, it is vital that clinicians seek patients’ views about how involved they would like to be in deciding on their cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Cancer patients can be overwhelmed when being confronted with their diagnosis and treatment options. Such information is often provided during one consultation between the patient and treating clinician. In order to achieve optimal cancer care, there may be justification for alternative consultation styles. We assessed, in a sample of adult medical oncology patients, their preferences for (i) attending one 40-min consultation or two 20-min consultations and (ii) receiving written only or both written and online information, when making a cancer treatment decision.Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey using a discrete choice design of 159 adult medical oncology patients presenting for their second or subsequent outpatient consultation. Participants were presented with a set of hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their most and least preferred scenario. The scenarios contained a caveat explaining that there would be no difference between the available treatment options in terms of when treatment would be initiated and the impact it would have on patients' life expectancy.Results: One hundred forty-seven patients completed the DCE. Of these, 70% (n = 103) preferred being provided with written and online information rather than just written information. This preference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Fifty-nine percent (n = 86) of patients preferred two 20-min consultations over one 40-min consultation when making a treatment decision. Significantly, more patients preferred two shorter consultations rather than one longer consultation when this was combined with written and online information (p < 0.01).Conclusion: When making a cancer treatment decision, clinicians should consider offering patients written and online information, combined with two shorter consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine perceived problems with involvement in medical decision making among people with breast cancer from various phases of the cancer care trajectory.Methods: Breast cancer outpatients (n = 663) from 13 treatment centres completed a survey of perceived involvement in treatment and care decisions in the last month, psychological distress, demographic and clinical factors. A subsample (n = 98) from three centres completed a follow-up survey on preferred and perceived treatment decision making roles.Results: Overall, 112 (17 %) of 663 respondents from 13 oncology centres had experienced problems with involvement in decision making about their treatment and care in the last month, and of these, 36 (32 %) reported an unmet need for help with this problem. Elevated psychological distress was associated with 5.7 times the odds of reporting this problem and 6.6 times the odds of reporting this unmet need in the last month. Among the follow-up subsample (n = 98), 39% (n = 38) reported discordance between preferred and perceived role in a major treatment decision. Psychological distress was not associated with this outcome.Conclusion: Psychological distress was significantly associated with recently experiencing problems with involvement in treatment and care decisions, but not with misalignment of preferred and perceived roles in prior major treatment decisions.Practice Implications: There is a need to maintain support for patient involvement in healthcare decisions across the cancer care continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]