scholarly journals Erratum to: Does a tailored, multilevel implementation programme help clinicians to apply shared decision-making in breast cancer care? A before-after study

BJS Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
H van Veenendaal ◽  
H R Voogdt-Pruis ◽  
D T Ubbink ◽  
C G J M Hilders
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Implementation Programme

scholarly journals Effect of a multilevel implementation programme on shared decision-making in breast cancer care

BJS Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
H van Veenendaal ◽  
H R Voogdt-Pruis ◽  
D T Ubbink ◽  
C G J M Hilders
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Breast Cancer Care ◽  
Multiple Treatment ◽  
Implementation Programme

Abstract Background Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer face multiple treatment options. Involving them in a shared decision-making (SDM) process is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multilevel implementation programme enhanced the level of SDM behaviour of clinicians observed in consultations. Methods This before–after study was conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Patients with breast cancer who were facing a decision on surgery or neoadjuvant systemic treatment between April 2016 and September 2017 were included, and provided informed consent. Audio recordings of consultations made before and after implementation were analysed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to assess whether clinicians adopted new behaviour needed for applying SDM. Patients scored their perceived level of SDM, using the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Hospital, duration of the consultation(s), age, and number of consultations per patient that might influence OPTION-5 scores were investigated using linear regression analysis. Results Consultations of 139 patients were audiotaped, including 80 before and 59 after implementation. Mean (s.d.) OPTION-5 scores, expressed on a 0–100 scale, increased from 38.3 (15.0) at baseline to 53.2 (14.8) 1 year after implementation (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95 per cent c.i. 9.9 to 19.9). SDM-Q-9 scores of 105 patients (75.5 per cent) (72 before and 33 after implementation) were high and showed no significant changes (91.3 versus 87.6; MD −3.7, −9.3 to 1.9). The implementation programme had an association with OPTION-5 scores (β = 14.2, P < 0.001), hospital (β = 2.2, P = 0.002), and consultation time (β = 0.2, P < 0.001). Conclusion A multilevel implementation programme supporting SDM in breast cancer care increased the adoption of SDM behaviour of clinicians in consultations.

Patient-centered pathology reports for breast cancer care: Interim results of a randomized pilot study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19157-e19157
Author(s):  
John L. Gore ◽  
Sara Javid ◽  
Elizabeth Austin ◽  
Mark Kilgore ◽  
Elizabeth Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Pathology Report ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Standard Report ◽  
Pathology Reports

e19157 Background: Receiving a new cancer diagnosis event is a daunting event, quickly followed by complex decision-making between patients and care teams. In order for patients to fully engage in shared decision-making with their providers, they must have access to understandable, patient-centered information that empowers them to take an active role. Yet cancer pathology reports currently target providers and are marred by complex medical terminology. To address this gap, we designed and piloted patient-centered pathology reports (PCPRs) for breast cancer surgical pathology. We hypothesized that PCPRs would result in patients having greater pathology knowledge and decisional self-efficacy. Methods: PCPRs were designed with continuous guidance from breast surgeons, pathologists, and patient advocates with the goal of providing a supplemental tool to translate standard pathology reports to layman’s terms for patients. PCPRs were built into the electronic medical record and tested for quality and accuracy over a 4-month period. Participants were recruited from the clinical practices of two breast surgeons and randomized to receive either the PCPR and standard pathology report or standard pathology report alone. Patients were surveyed at baseline and one month after to assess their breast cancer knowledge and ratings of confidence (scale 1-5) and decisional self-efficacy (DSE) for treatment decision-making (scale 0-100). Results: Of a planned 40 pilot patients, 30 have been enrolled, randomized (20 standard report patients, 10 PCPR patients), and have follow up data. Evaluation of patient knowledge showed that compared with the control group, patients who received a PCPR had similar knowledge of the important elements of their report (p = 0.10-p = 0.69) with greater specificity for those report elements. Confidence in their diagnosis slightly favored PCPR recipients (confidence rating mean 4.00 vs. 3.77 for control patients, p = 0.67). Patients receiving the PCPR had better DSE immediately after receipt of the pathology report than standard report patients (DSE 96.0 vs. 82.2, respectively, p = 0.05) with a more attenuated DSE difference one month later (DSE 87.3 vs. 79.2, respectively, p = 0.35). Conclusions: This interim analysis suggests that providing breast cancer patients with patient-centered pathology reports may contribute to an improved ability to engage in shared decision-making. Confirming these results with complete pilot data could inform a larger multicenter study to validate their effectiveness in clinical cancer care.

What Is the Impact of Shared Decision Making on Treatment and Outcomes for Older Women With Breast Cancer?

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (30) ◽  
pp. 4908-4913 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne Mandelblatt ◽  
Barbara Kreling ◽  
Melissa Figeuriedo ◽  
Shibao Feng
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Older Women ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Process Of Care ◽  
Short Term ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Shared decision making (SDM) has been recommended as a standard of care, especially when there are treatment alternatives or uncertainty in outcomes. However, we know little about use of SDM in cancer care, and even less is known about SDM in older patients. We describe patient and physician determinants of SDM in older women with breast cancer and evaluate whether SDM is associated with treatment patterns or short-term outcomes of care. Patients and Methods Women age 67 or older treated for early stage breast cancer in 29 sites from five geographic regions comprise the study sample (N = 718). Data were obtained from patients by in-person and telephone interviews. Physician data were collected via survey, and medical records were reviewed to ascertain comorbidity and tumor characteristics. Random effects and logistic regression models were used to assess associations between SDM and other factors. Results Women who were age 67 to 74 years (v 75 or older) were accompanied to consultation and who sought information reported the highest SDM, after considering covariates. While SDM was not associated with surgical treatment, greater SDM was associated with higher odds of having adjuvant treatment, controlling for clinical factors. Greater SDM was also associated with improved short-term satisfaction. Conclusion SDM plays an important role in the process of care for older women with breast cancer. Physicians treating this growing population have a simple, but powerful tool for improving outcomes within their grasp—spending time to engage and involve older women in their breast cancer care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document