Factors that influence patients' views on treatment decision-making in localised kidney cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Beyer K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8261443 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Factors that influence patients' views on treatment decision-making in localised kidney cancer.
Beyer Katharina K Barod Ravi R Nicol David D Hussain Muddassar M Van Hemelrijck Mieke M Kinsella Netty N
Translational andrology and urology 20210601 6
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7753465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIndividuals diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer (PCa) face a difficult decision between active surveillance (AS) and definitive treatment. We aimed to explore perceived influences on treatment decision-making from the patient and partner's perspectives.MethodsPatients (and partners) who met AS criteria and had chosen their treatment were recruited. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted via telephone to explore experiences of diagnosis, impact on patient lifestyle, experiences with physicians, treatment preferences/choice, treatment information understanding and needs, and overall decision-making process. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.ResultsTwenty-four male patients (18 chose AS) and 12 female partners participated. Five themes relating to social-ecological influences on treatment choice were identified: (1) partner support and direct influence on patient treatment choice, (2) patient and partner vicarious experiences may influence treatment decisions, (3) the influence of the patient's life circumstances, (4) disclosing to wider social networks: friends, family, and co-workers, and (5) the importance of a good relationship and experience with physicians. Additionally, two themes were identified relating to information patients and partners received about the treatment options during their decision-making process.ConclusionsA range of individual and social influences on treatment decision-making were reported. Physicians providing treatment recommendations should consider and discuss the patient and partner's existing beliefs and treatment preferences and encourage shared decision-making. Further research on treatment decision-making of partnered and non-partnered PCa patients is required. We recommend research considers social ecological factors across the personal, interpersonal, community, and policy levels.
| S-EPMC9786728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted medical care across health care settings for older patients with advanced CKD. Understanding how shared decision making for kidney treatment decisions was influenced by the uncertainty of an evolving pandemic can provide insights for supporting shared decision making through the current and future public health crises.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe performed thematic and narrative analyses of semistructured interviews with patients (CKD stages 4 and 5, age 70+), care partners, and clinicians from Boston, Portland (Maine), San Diego, and Chicago from August to December 2020.ResultsWe interviewed 76 participants (39 patients, 17 care partners, and 20 clinicians). Among patient participants, 13 (33%) patients identified as Black, and seven (18%) had initiated dialysis. Four themes with corresponding subthemes emerged related to treatment decision making and the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) adapting to changed educational and patient engagement practices (patient barriers to care and new opportunities for telemedicine); (2) reconceptualizing vulnerability (clinician awareness of illness severity increased and limited discussions of patient COVID-19 vulnerability); (3) embracing home-based dialysis but not conservative management (openness to home-based modalities and limited discussion of conservative management and advanced care planning); and (4) satisfaction and safety with treatment decisions despite conditions of uncertainty.ConclusionsAlthough clinicians perceived greater vulnerability among older patients CKD and more readily encouraged home-based modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic, their discussions of vulnerability, advance care planning, and conservative management remained limited, suggesting areas for improvement. Clinicians reported burnout caused by the pandemic, increased time demands, and workforce limitations, whereas patients remained satisfied with their treatment choices despite uncertainty.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberDecision Aid for Renal Therapy (DART), NCT03522740.
| S-EPMC9269620 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10616584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the views of patients and carers in decision making regarding treatment for chronic kidney disease, and to determine which factors influence those decisions.DesignSystematic review of qualitative studies of decision making and choice for dialysis, transplantation, or palliative care, and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.Data sourcesMedline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, social work abstracts, and digital theses (database inception to week 3 October 2008) to identify literature using qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews, or case studies). Review methods Thematic synthesis involved line by line coding of the findings of the primary studies and development of descriptive and analytical themes.Results18 studies that reported the experiences of 375 patients and 87 carers were included. 14 studies focused on preferences for dialysis modality, three on transplantation, and one on palliative management. Four major themes were identified as being central to treatment choices: confronting mortality (choosing life or death, being a burden, living in limbo), lack of choice (medical decision, lack of information, constraints on resources), gaining knowledge of options (peer influence, timing of information), and weighing alternatives (maintaining lifestyle, family influences, maintaining the status quo).ConclusionsThe experiences of other patients greatly influenced the decision making of patients and carers. The problematic timing of information about treatment options and synchronous creation of vascular access seemed to predetermine haemodialysis and inhibit choice of other treatments, including palliative care. A preference to maintain the status quo may explain why patients often remain on their initial therapy.
| S-EPMC2808468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is limited information on gastroenterologists' perspectives of shared decision making (SDM) in discussions of therapeutic agents with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients.To examine gastroenterologists' perspectives about SDM with IBD patients, using a novel statistical hybrid approach to analyze qualitative data.Physician interviews and online surveys were conducted from a panel of gastroenterologists in April 2012. Gastroenterologists were asked about their barriers to SDM, SDM practices, relationship to their patients, knowledge of SDM, and insights into SDM implementation. Key audio excerpts adapted from the interviews were used for moment-to-moment affect trace analysis in an online survey. Cluster analysis was used to segment gastroenterologists into mutually exclusive provider groups.One hundred and six gastroenterologists completed the survey (88 % male; 55 % ? 50 years of age). Over three-fourths of gastroenterologists were familiar with SDM (77 %). The vast majority of gastroenterologists (80 %) tried to use a form of SDM with their patients; only 12 % stated that they have a systematic, consistent, and formally documented approach to SDM. Three unique physician clusters were identified: SDM Believers (20 %, n = 20); SDM Skeptics (47 %, n = 47); and SDM Enthusiasts (34 %, n = 34). The three key barriers to practicing SDM were lack of the following: time (74 %), reimbursement (70 %), and tools (51 %). Twenty-two percent of gastroenterologists do not currently use SDM tools.Gastroenterologists lack the systematic approaches and tools for implementing SDM within their IBD practices. These data offer a foundation for future research in developing and testing SDM programs for gastroenterologists and their IBD patients.
| S-EPMC4541702 | biostudies-other
Project description:To explore the views of Malaysian healthcare professionals (HCPs) on stakeholders' decision making roles in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment.Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with HCPs treating PCa. Data was analysed using a thematic approach. Four in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted between December 2012 and March 2013 using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.The participants comprised private urologists (n = 4), government urologists (n = 6), urology trainees (n = 6), government policy maker (n = 1) and oncologists (n = 3). HCP perceptions of the roles of the three parties involved (HCPs, patients, family) included: HCP as the main decision maker, HCP as a guide to patients' decision making, HCP as a facilitator to family involvement, patients as main decision maker and patient prefers HCP to decide. HCPs preferred to share the decision with patients due to equipoise between prostate treatment options. Family culture was important as family members often decided on the patient's treatment due to Malaysia's close-knit family culture.A range of decision making roles were reported by HCPs. It is thus important that stakeholder roles are clarified during PCa treatment decisions. HCPs need to cultivate an awareness of sociocultural norms and family dynamics when supporting non-Western patients in making decisions about PCa.
| S-EPMC4641697 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundActive surveillance (AS) is underutilized for low-risk prostate cancer. This study examines decision-making factors associated with AS vs aggressive treatment in a population-based cohort of low-risk patients.MethodsNewly diagnosed patients (n = 599) were enrolled through the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry from 2011 to 2013 and surveyed regarding 5 factors that may impact treatment decision making: perceived cancer aggressiveness, aggressiveness of treatment intent, most important goal (eg, cure, quality of life), primary information source, and primary decision maker. We examined the association between treatment decision-making factors with patient choice for AS vs aggressive treatment using multivariable logistic regression analysis.ResultsThis is a sociodemographically diverse cohort reflective of the population-based design, with 37.6% overall (47.6% among very low-risk patients) choosing AS. Aggressive treatment intent (odds ratio [OR] = 7.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.57 to 11.01), perceived cancer aggressiveness (OR = 4.93, 95% CI = 2.71 to 8.97), most important goal (cure vs other, OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.12 to 2.63), and primary information source (personal and family vs physician, OR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.10 to 2.82) were associated with aggressive treatment. Overall, 88.4% of patients (92.2% among very low-risk) who indicated an intent to treat the cancer "not very aggressively" chose AS.ConclusionsThese data from the patient's perspective shed new light on potentially modifiable factors that can help further increase AS uptake among low-risk patients. Helping more low-risk patients feel comfortable with a "not very aggressive" treatment approach may be especially important, which can be facilitated through patient education interventions to improve the understanding of the cancer diagnosis and AS having a curative intent.
| S-EPMC8857916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationalePulmonologists frequently encounter indeterminate pulmonary nodules in practice, but it is unclear what clinical factors they rely on to guide the diagnostic evaluation.ObjectivesTo assess the current approach to the management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules and to determine the extent to which the addition of a hypothetical diagnostic blood test will influence clinical decision making.MethodsSelected pulmonologists practicing in the United States were invited to participate in a conjoint exercise based on 20 randomly generated cases of varying age, smoking history, and nodule size. Some cases included the result of a hypothetical blood test. Each respondent chose from among three diagnostic options for a patient: noninvasive monitoring (i.e., serial CT or positron emission tomography scan), a minor procedure (i.e., biopsy or bronchoscopy), or a major procedure (i.e., video-assisted thorascopic surgery or thoracotomy). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of the three risk factors and the diagnostic blood test on decision making.Measurements and main resultsFour hundred nineteen physicians participated (response rate, 10%). One hundred fifty-three physician surveys met predetermined criteria and were analyzed (4% of all invitees). A diagnostic procedure was recommended for 23% of 6-mm nodules, versus 54, 66, 77, and 84% of nodules 10, 14, 18, and 22 mm, respectively (P < 0.001). Older age limited recommendations for invasive testing: 54% of 80-year-olds versus 61, 64, 63, and 61% of patients 71, 62, 53, and 44 years of age, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, nodule size, smoking history, age, and the blood test each influenced decision making (P < 0.001).ConclusionsThe pulmonologists who participated in this survey were more likely to proceed with invasive testing, instead of observation or additional imaging, as the size of the nodule increased. The use of a hypothetical blood test resulted in significant alterations in the decision to pursue invasive testing.
| S-EPMC5475427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn this scoping review, we evaluated existing literature related to factors influencing treatment decision-making for patients diagnosed with cancer in low- and middle-income countries, noting factors that influence decisions to pursue treatment with curative versus non-curative intent. We identified an existing framework for adult cancer developed in a high-income country (HIC) context and described similar and novel factors relevant to low-and middle-income country settings.MethodsWe used scoping review methodology to identify and synthesize existing literature on factors influencing decision-making for pediatric and adult cancer in these settings. Articles were identified through an advanced Boolean search across six databases, inclusive of all article types from inception through July 2022.ResultsSeventy-nine articles were identified from 22 countries across six regions, primarily reporting the experiences of lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries. Included articles largely represented original research (54%), adult cancer populations (61%), and studied patients as the targeted population (51%). More than a quarter of articles focused exclusively on breast cancer (28%). Approximately 30% described factors that influenced decisions to choose between therapies with curative versus non-curative intent. Of 56 reported factors, 22 novel factors were identified. Socioeconomic status, reimbursement policies/cost of treatment, and treatment and supportive care were the most commonly described factors.ConclusionsThis scoping review expanded upon previously described factors that influence cancer treatment decision-making in HICs, broadening knowledge to include perspectives of low- and middle-income countries. While global commonalities exist, certain variables influence treatment choices differently or uniquely in different settings. Treatment regimens should further be tailored to local environments with consideration of contextual factors and accessible resources that often impact decision-making.
| S-EPMC10524036 | biostudies-literature