Doctors’ and Patients’ Preferences for Participation and Treatment in Curative Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Stalmeier, Peep F. M.; Tol-Geerdink, Julia J. van; Lin, Emile N.J.T. van; Schimmel, Erik C.; Huizenga, H.; Daal, W.A.J. van; Leer, Jan-Willem H.

doi:10.1200/jco.2006.07.4955

Cited by 79 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Involving patients in treatment-related decision making is in line with the increasingly acknowledged patients' right to autonomy and self-determination. The need to involve patients is supported by evidence that physicians do not have the ability to adequately judge patients' values for outcomes of care (Cotler et al, 2001;Montgomery and Fahey, 2001;Brothers et al, 2004;Stalmeier et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient participation in treatment decision-making is being increasingly advocated, although cancer treatments are often guidelinedriven. Trade-offs between benefits and side effects underlying guidelines are made by clinicians. Evidence suggests that clinicians are inaccurate at predicting patient values. The aim was to assess what role oncologists and cancer patients prefer in deciding about treatment, and how they view patient participation in treatment decision-making. Seventy disease-free cancer patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, and medical) were interviewed about their role preferences using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and about their views on patient participation using closed-and open-ended questions. Almost all participants preferred treatment decisions to be the outcome of a shared process. Clinicians viewed participation more often as reaching an agreement, whereas 23% of patients defined participation exclusively as being informed. Of the participants, X81% thought not all patients are able to participate and X74% thought clinicians are not always able to weigh the pros and cons of treatment for patients, especially not quality as compared with length of life. Clinicians seemed reluctant to share probability information on the likely impact of adjuvant treatment. Clinicians should acknowledge the legitimacy of patients' values in treatment decisions. Guidelines should recommend elicitation of patient values at specific decision points.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9,14 However, evidence suggests that physicians and patients have different goals for prostate cancer care 15 and physicians' perceptions of the preferences of their own patients are not accurate. [16][17][18] The strongest predictor of treatment choice is not patient preference but physician specialty; specialists overwhelmingly recommend the treatment they deliver. 19,20 Thus, it is not surprising that the treatment of low-risk prostate cancer is highly variable by geography and patient sociodemographics and is strongly influenced by nonclinical factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Decision Aids for Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Lin¹,

Aaronson²,

Knight³

et al. 2009

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

127

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment decision-making can be difficult and complex for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. To the authors' knowledge, there is no consensus regarding an optimal treatment strategy and the choice of therapy involves tradeoffs between differing harms and benefits that are sensitive to patient values. In such situations, patients are often asked to participate actively in the decision-making process, and high-quality decisions require a well-informed patient whose values and preferences have been taken into consideration. Prior studies have indicated that patients have poor knowledge and unrealistic expectations regarding treatment, and physician judgments concerning patient preferences are often inaccurate. Decision aids (DAs) have been developed to help inform patients with low-risk prostate cancer about treatment options and assist in the decision-making process; however, little is currently known regarding the effects of such programs in this population. Thirteen studies of DAs for patients with prostate cancer were reviewed and it was found that the use of DAs can improve knowledge, encourage more active patient involvement in decision-making, and decrease levels of anxiety and distress. The effect of DAs on treatment choice was less clear, although fewer patients chose surgery compared with historical controls, particularly in Europe. Further studies are needed to determine how best to implement DAs into practice, and whether they improve the consistency between patient preferences and treatment choice.

show abstract

“…Participants in the survey reported much more discussion of the pros than the cons of all tests or treatments and there are still clinical decisions being made without physician seeking patients' input (Fowler, Gerstein et al 2013). Active or shared decision making, however, should be encouraged, as Stalmeier et al (Stalmeier, van Tol-Geerdink et al 2007) pointed out that physicians often underestimated patients' preferences for active participation as well as misjudged patient's preference in treatment option.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Figure 1) These include, 1 study examining influences of partners (Zeliadt, Penson et al 2011), 2 studies examining influence of physicians (Fowler, McNaughton Collins et al 2000, Stalmeier, van Tol-Geerdink et al 2007, 16 studies comparing treatment preferences (Mazur and Hickam 1996, Hall, Boyd et al 2003, Auvinen, Hakama et al 2004, Berry, Ellis et al 2006, Zeliadt, Ramsey et al 2006, Block, Erickson et al 2007, Cox and Amling 2008, van den Bergh, van Vugt et al 2010, Davison and Goldenberg 2011, Ihrig, Keller et al 2011, Hamilton, Wu et al 2012, Penson 2012, Sidana, Hernandez et al 2012, van TolGeerdink, Willem Leer et al 2013, 4 studies on decision aids (Lin, Aaronson et al 2009, Adsul, Wray et al 2015, Violette, Agoritsas et al 2015, van Tol-Geerdink, Leer et al 2016, 7 studies (Cohen and Britten 2003, Davison, Goldenberg et al 2003, Davison, Parker et al 2004, Fischer, Visser et al 2006, Deber, Kraetschmer et al 2007, Pieterse, Henselmans et al 2011, Song, Chen et al 2013, 4 studies related to psychosocial issues of decision making (Wong, Stewart et al 2000, Kraetschmer, Sharpe et al 2004, Steginga, Turner et al 2008, Birnie and Robinson 2010, 3 studies on demographic differences in decision making (Meyer, Talbot et al 2007, Xu, Dailey et...…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The decision-making role of the patient in localised prostate cancer treatment

Wang

Ranasinghe

2017

AJIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our objective was to review the current literature on patient participation and decision-making in the treatment selection process for localised prostate cancer, and to evaluate capacity for improvement. Methods: 42 articles from our literature search were deemed eligible and relevant for review. We reviewed studies on all facets of the treatment decision-making process with most number of articles (16) on treatment preferences. Results: The majority of the patients prefer an active or collaborative role in decision-making. Patients are seeking information from a myriad of sources but the recommendation from their treating physician is often the most influential on the final decision. Radical prostatectomy is more likely to be selected in patients who view a cure for cancer as being of the utmost importance and radiation therapy is preferred in patients who are concerned about treatment side effects. Conclusion: Currently no ideal tool exists to assist patients in making informed treatment decisions that also takes into account patients' values and preferences. We encourage collaborative partnership in a multidisciplinary setting to optimise this process and individualised riskbased decision-making tools may provide a better pathway to assist patients reach decisions.

show abstract

Doctors’ and Patients’ Preferences for Participation and Treatment in Curative Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

Cited by 79 publications

References 35 publications

Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration

Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration

Patient Decision Aids for Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The decision-making role of the patient in localised prostate cancer treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About