scholarly journals Patient and proxy reports regarding the experience of treatment decision‐making in cancer care

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 1943-1950
Author(s):  
Jessica K. Roydhouse ◽  
Roee Gutman ◽  
Ira B. Wilson ◽  
Kenneth L. Kehl ◽  
Nancy L. Keating
2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (13-14) ◽  
pp. 2023-2031 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gill Hubbard ◽  
Nicola Illingworth ◽  
Neneh Rowa-Dewar ◽  
Liz Forbat ◽  
Nora Kearney

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3.5) ◽  
pp. HSR19-089
Author(s):  
Sara Hayes ◽  
Brian M. Green ◽  
Shayna Yeates ◽  
Amrita Bhowmick ◽  
Kaitlyn McNamara ◽  
...  

Background: Despite NCCN Guidelines and clear definition of palliative care, patients often carry misperceptions about palliative care and how it can be beneficially integrated into a patient’s care plan. In order to better understand the misinformation about palliative and hospice care, this study aims to assess patient-healthcare provider (HCP) communication regarding treatment decisions. Methods: An online survey was conducted with individuals who have had a diagnosis of cancer (n=1,517) to better understand their healthcare experiences as well as the impact their cancer diagnosis had on their quality of life. Measures included agreement scale questions assessing patient information needs surrounding treatment decision making. Open-ended questions where respondents were prompted to provide a written response allowed researchers to further assess patients’ understanding of palliative and hospice care. Responses to agreement-scale questions were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Openended question responses were analyzed using Dedoose qualitative data analysis software. Results: Among patients with a diagnosis of cancer, there were a broad range of patient misperceptions regarding palliative care, hospice care, and how they are used in cancer care. The majority of respondents (81%) stated that their HCP played a role when deciding on their treatment plan. Despite this, only 46% were confident they knew about the treatment’s impact on their daily life, 56% were confident they knew about the potential side effects of treatment, and 57% felt they had all of the information they needed. Themes identified through qualitative analysis include: patient conflation of palliative and hospice care, belief that palliative and hospice care are only relevant to end-of-life decision-making, and uncertainty about whether quality of life can actually be improved. Conclusions: Institutions and HCPs are recommended to integrate palliative care into cancer care. However, as this research shows, oncology patients are often misinformed about the benefits of palliative care. This follows a parallel concern of patients making treatment decisions without optimal information. A potential factor behind this unmet need may be lack of effective communication between patient and HCP. Palliative care may be mentioned by the HCP, but not discussed with enough empathy or depth, leading to patient misunderstanding and lack of inclusion in treatment plans.


2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110222
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Palmer Kelly ◽  
Brian Myers ◽  
Brent Henderson ◽  
Petra Sprik ◽  
Kelsey B. White ◽  
...  

Background Providers often underestimate the influence of patient religious and spiritual (R&S) needs. The current study sought to determine the influence of R&S beliefs on treatment decision making among patients and providers in the context of cancer care. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature using web-based search engines and discipline-specific databases. Search terms included a combination of the following Medical Subject Headings and key terms: “cancer,”“spirituality,”“religion,” and “decision making.” We used Covidence to screen relevant studies and extracted data into Microsoft Excel. Results Among 311 screened studies, 32 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most studies evaluated the patient perspective ( n = 29), while 2 studies evaluated the provider perspective and 1 study examined both. In assessing patient R&S relative to treatment decision making, we thematically characterized articles according to decision-making contexts, including general ( n = 11), end-of-life/advance care planning ( n = 13), and other: specific ( n = 8). Specific contexts included, but were not limited to, clinical trial participation ( n = 2) and use of complementary and alternative medicine ( n = 4). Within end-of-life/advance care planning, there was a discrepancy regarding how R&S influenced treatment decision making. The influence of R&S on general treatment decision making was both active and passive, with some patients wanting more direct integration of their R&S beliefs in treatment decision making. In contrast, other patients were less aware of indirect R&S influences. Patient perception of the impact of R&S on treatment decision making varied relative to race/ethnicity, being more pronounced among Black patients. Conclusion Most articles focused on R&S relative to treatment decision making at the end of life, even though R&S appeared important across the care continuum. To improve patient-centered cancer care, providers need to be more aware of the impact of R&S on treatment decision making.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuya Kushida ◽  
Takeshi Hiramoto ◽  
Yuriko Yamakawa

In spite of increasing advocacy for patients’ participation in psychiatric decision-making, there has been little research on how patients actually participate in decision-making in psychiatric consultations. This study explores how patients take the initiative in decision-making over treatment in outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan. Using the methodology of conversation analysis, we analyze 85 video-recorded ongoing consultations and find that patients select between two practices for taking the initiative in decision-making: making explicit requests for a treatment and displaying interest in a treatment without explicitly requesting it. A close inspection of transcribed interaction reveals that patients make explicit requests under the circumstances where they believe the candidate treatment is appropriate for their condition, whereas they merely display interest in a treatment when they are not certain about its appropriateness. By fitting practices to take the initiative in decision-making with the way they describe their current condition, patients are optimally managing their desire for particular treatments and the validity of their initiative actions. In conclusion, we argue that the orderly use of the two practices is one important resource for patients’ participation in treatment decision-making.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary A. O'Brien ◽  
Timothy Whelan ◽  
Amiram Gafni ◽  
Cathy Charles ◽  
Peter Ellis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document