scholarly journals Treatment preferences and involvement in treatment decision making of patients with endometrial cancer and clinicians

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 674-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Kunneman ◽  
A H Pieterse ◽  
A M Stiggelbout ◽  
R A Nout ◽  
M Kamps ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

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

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke L Wang ◽  
Weranja K.B. Ranasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Side Effects ◽  
Ideal Tool ◽  
Informed Treatment

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 risk-based decision-making tools may provide a better pathway to assist patients reach decisions.

scholarly journals The considerations, experiences and support needs of family members making treatment decisions for patients admitted with major stroke: a qualitative study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akila Visvanathan ◽  
Gillian Mead ◽  
Martin Dennis ◽  
William Whiteley ◽  
Fergus Doubal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
State Of Health ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Major Stroke

Abstract Background Treatment decision-making by family members on behalf of patients with major stroke can be challenging because of the shock of the diagnosis and lack of knowledge of the patient’s treatment preferences. We aimed to understand how, and why, family members made certain treatment decisions, and explored their information and support needs. Method Semi-structured interviews with family members (n=24) of patients with major stroke, within two weeks of hospital admission. Data were analysed thematically. Results Families’ approach to treatment decision-making lay on a spectrum according to the patient’s state of health pre-stroke (i.e. patient’s prior experience of illness and functional status) and any views expressed about treatment preferences in the event of life-threatening illness. Support and information needs varied according to where they were on this spectrum. At one extreme, family members described deciding not to initiate life-extending treatments from the outset because of the patients’ deteriorating health and preferences expressed pre-stroke. Information from doctors about poor prognosis was merely used to confirm this decision. In the middle of the spectrum were family members of patients who had been moderately independent pre-stroke. They described the initial shock of the diagnosis and how they had initially wanted all treatments to continue. However, once they overcame their shock, and had gathered relevant information, including information about poor prognosis from doctors, they decided that life-extending treatments were no longer appropriate. Many reported this process to be upsetting and expressed a need for psychological support. At the other end of the spectrum were family members of previously independent patients whose preferences pre-stroke had not been known. Family members described feeling extremely distressed at such an unexpected situation and wanting all treatments to continue. They described needing psychological support and hope that the patient would survive. Conclusion The knowledge that family members’ treatment decision-making approaches lay on a spectrum depending on the patient’s state of health and stated preferences pre-stroke may allow doctors to better prepare for discussions regarding the patient’s prognosis. This may enable doctors to provide information and support that is tailored towards family members’ needs.

scholarly journals POS0062-PARE REAL-WORLD PATIENT EXPERIENCE AND TREATMENT PREFERENCES IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 237.2-238
Author(s):  
A. Ogdie ◽  
C. Mansfield ◽  
K. Myers ◽  
W. Tillett ◽  
P. Nash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Research Support ◽  
New Therapies ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Patients Experience

Background:Despite recent advances in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), many patients experience inadequate response or intolerance to therapy, indicating that unmet treatment-related needs remain. An understanding of patients’ experience with PsA and its treatment is needed to bring the patient’s perspective into treatment decision-making and development of new therapies.Objectives:To better understand real-world PsA patients’ experience with PsA via evaluation of (1) the burden and importance of common PsA symptoms and disease impacts and (2) treatment preferences.Methods:A cross-sectional, web-based survey was developed, informed by published literature and treatment guidelines, expert clinical opinion, and cognitive debriefing interviews with PsA patients. Adults with a self-reported diagnosis of PsA were recruited from a US rheumatology patient-centered research registry and other online patient communities. Object case best-worst scaling (BWS) was used to evaluate the relative burden of 11 PsA-related symptoms and the relative importance of improvement in 9 PsA-related disease impacts. BWS data were analyzed using a random parameters logit model. Data on patient demographics and preferences for PsA treatment attributes, including experience with methotrexate and preference for route and frequency of administration, were analyzed descriptively.Results:The sample of 247 respondents was 79% female, had a mean age of 53.4 years (range 24-79 years), and had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 9.4 years, with 86% currently being treated by a rheumatologist. The most common PsA symptoms ever experienced were joint pain, morning stiffness and fatigue, while the least common symptom was skin pain/discomfort related to psoriasis patches. In the BWS, patients reported pain-related symptoms (i.e., joint pain and lower back or spine pain) as the most bothersome, while the least bothersome symptoms were psoriasis-related (Figure 1). Patients reported ability to perform physical activities as the most important disease impact to improve, followed by ability to live/function independently, sleep quality, and ability to do daily activities. Nearly half the sample (49%) stated they would strongly prefer a treatment for PsA that does not include methotrexate. Among patients who were not satisfied with methotrexate, the top reason was dislike of the short-term side effects after each dose. When asked to choose among four different ways of taking their PsA medication (oral once a day, oral twice a day, injection every 2 weeks, injection once a month), the most preferred method was oral once a day (38%) followed by injection once a month (26%), with 24% indicating no preference. Additionally, 49% of the sample felt that mode of administration was an important factor when deciding to start a new therapy.Conclusion:Among real-world patients with PsA, the most bothersome PsA symptoms were related to pain while patients most wanted to improve functional impacts of their disease. Patients most preferred an oral once a day treatment option and treatment regimens that do not include methotrexate. These findings can serve to better inform development of new therapies and guide shared patient-provider treatment decision making.Disclosure of Interests:Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer to Penn, Novartis to Penn, Amgen to Forward/NDB.Royalties: Novartis to husband, Carol Mansfield: None declared, Kelley Myers: None declared, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc., and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Boerhringer, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Janssen, Gilead, and Samsung, Colton Leach: None declared, W. Benjamin Nowell Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and Eli Lilly, Kelly Gavigan: None declared, Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jessica A. Walsh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer.

Giving voice to patients: Understanding treatment preferences of patients with multiple myeloma (MM).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18302-e18302
Author(s):  
Caroline McKay ◽  
Eric Maiese ◽  
Joseph Chiarappa ◽  
Laura Sarokin ◽  
M. Janelle Cambron-Mellott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Trade Offs

e18302 Background: Findings from few studies examining preferences for MM treatment are limited in application, as they are largely missing the voices of patients (PTs). The present qualitative study elucidates PT preferences, the perceived trade-offs they are willing to make, and how these may differ by line of therapy (LOT). Methods: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with MM PTs (front-line [FL] = 11, early relapse 1- 2 prior-lines [1/2PL] = 10) recruited via purposive sampling from targeted panels and PT groups, April-May 2018. A discussion guide was developed and a trained interviewer conducted 1-hour interviews on the diversity and valence of factors influencing how PTs evaluate potential regimens and how preferences vary by experience (i.e., LOT). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, responses coded, and content analysis performed to identify key themes emerging from textual data. Results: The sample was 42% male, mean age 64 years, with mean 58 months since diagnosis. Three key themes were identified. Firstly, treatment decision-making, revealed that trust in one’s health care provider (HCP) was a potent influence on treatment choice. Whereas FL PTs reported often only one option is offered and rely on HCP to make decisions, 1/2PL PTs consider other sources of information and engage in more shared decision-making. Secondly, expectations about treatment, illustrated that HCPs discuss important factors, e.g., efficacy and tolerability, in general terms with FL PTs and provide more details to 1/2PL PTs. Lastly, “ top of mind” factors that influenced treatment decisions, effectiveness, followed by side effects, emerged as the greatest influences on preference, although 1/2PL PTs reported less concern with side effects than FL PTs. Relatedly, quality of life was described as salient; the lived experience of treatment was often mentioned within the context of side effects. Conclusions: The way PTs construct, prioritize, and communicate about treatment when assessing “benefit-risk” is a dynamic process, based on where PTs are in their treatment journey. By examining treatment preferences grounded in PTs’ lived and changing experiences with MM, the findings may contribute to better PT-HCP engagement through treatment decision-making and improve clinical care.

scholarly journals The considerations, experiences and support needs of family members making treatment decisions for patients admitted with major stroke: a qualitative study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akila Visvanathan ◽  
Gillian Mead ◽  
Martin Dennis ◽  
William Whiteley ◽  
Fergus Doubal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
State Of Health ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Major Stroke

Abstract Background Treatment decision-making by family members on behalf of patients with major stroke can be challenging because of the shock of the diagnosis and lack of knowledge of the patient’s treatment preferences. We aimed to understand how, and why, family members made certain treatment decisions, and explored their information and support needs. Method Semi-structured interviews with family members (n=24) of patients with major stroke, within two weeks of hospital admission. Data were analysed thematically. Results Families’ approach to treatment decision-making lay on a spectrum according to the patient’s state of health pre-stroke (i.e. patient’s prior experience of illness and functional status) and any views expressed about treatment preferences in the event of life-threatening illness. Support and information needs varied according to where they were on this spectrum. At one extreme, family members described deciding not to initiate life-extending treatments from the outset because of the patients’ deteriorating health and preferences expressed pre-stroke. Information from doctors about poor prognosis was merely used to confirm this decision. In the middle of the spectrum were family members of patients who had been moderately independent pre-stroke. They described the initial shock of the diagnosis and how they had initially wanted all treatments to continue. However, once they overcame their shock, and had gathered relevant information, including information about poor prognosis from doctors, they decided that life-extending treatments were no longer appropriate. Many reported this process to be upsetting and expressed a need for psychological support. At the other end of the spectrum were family members of previously independent patients whose preferences pre-stroke had not been known. Family members described feeling extremely distressed at such an unexpected situation and wanting all treatments to continue. They described needing psychological support and hope that the patient would survive. Conclusion The knowledge that family members’ treatment decision-making approaches lay on a spectrum depending on the patient’s state of health and stated preferences pre-stroke may allow doctors to better prepare for discussions regarding the patient’s prognosis. This may enable doctors to provide information and support that is tailored towards family members’ needs.

Considering patient values and treatment preferences enhances patient involvement in rectal cancer treatment decision making

2015 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marleen Kunneman ◽  
Corrie A.M. Marijnen ◽  
Monique C.M. Baas-Thijssen ◽  
Yvette M. van der Linden ◽  
Tom Rozema ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Rectal Cancer Treatment ◽  
Patient Values

Patients’ practices for taking the initiative in decision-making in outpatient psychiatric consultations

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuya Kushida ◽  
Takeshi Hiramoto ◽  
Yuriko Yamakawa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conversation Analysis ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Close Inspection ◽  
Important Resource ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Way

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document