Dataset Information

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.

Results

Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

SUBMITTER: Guan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10696696 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

Guan Alice A Santiago-Rodríguez Eduardo J EJ Chung Benjamin I BI Shim Janet K JK Allen Laura L Kuo Mei-Chin MC Lau Kathie K Loya Zinnia Z Brooks James D JD Cheng Iona I DeRouen Mindy C MC Frosch Dominick L DL Golden Todd T Leppert John T JT Lichtensztajn Daphne Y DY Lu Qian Q Oh Debora D Sieh Weiva W Wadhwa Michelle M Cooperberg Matthew R MR Carroll Peter R PR Gomez Scarlett L SL Shariff-Marco Salma S

BMC cancer 20231205 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decis ...[more]

PMID: 38053037

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeWe conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer.MethodsWe conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group.ResultsOur study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator.ConclusionsWith patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer.

Project description:Background and objectiveNew treatments for haemophilia are under development or entering the market, including extended half-life products, designer drugs and gene therapy, thereby increasing treatment options for haemophilia. It is currently unknown how people with haemophilia decide whether to switch to a new treatment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore what factors may play a role when Dutch patients and parents of boys with moderate or severe haemophilia make decisions about whether to switch to a different treatment, and how disease and treatment characteristics may affect these decisions. This may aid clinical teams in tailored information provision and shared decision making.MethodsWe conducted interviews among adults with moderately severe or severe haemophilia and parents of young boys with severe haemophilia. We aimed to include participants from a variety of backgrounds in terms of involvement in the haemophilia community, age, treatment centre and treatments. Participants were recruited through the Netherlands Haemophilia Society and a haemophilia treatment centre. Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data.ResultsTwelve people with haemophilia and two mothers of boys with haemophilia were included. In general, participants reported to be satisfied with their current treatment. However, they considered ease of use of the medication (fewer injections, easier handling, alternative administration) an added value of new treatments. Participants were aware of the high cost of coagulation factor products and some expressed their concern about the Netherlands Haemophilia Society's long-term willingness to pay for current and novel treatments, especially for increased usage due to high-risk activities. Participants also expressed their concerns about the short- and long-term safety of new treatments and believed the effects of gene therapy were not yet fully understood. Participants expected their treatment team to inform them when a particular new treatment would be suitable for them.ConclusionsWith the number of treatment options set to increase, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of how patient experiences shape patients' decisions about new therapies.

Project description:BackgroundDespite an increasing number of smartphone apps, such therapeutic tools have not yet consistently demonstrated their efficacy and many suffer from low retention rates. To ensure the development of efficient apps associated with high adherence, we aimed to identify, through a user-centred design approach, patient and physician expectations of a hypothetical app dedicated to depression.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with physicians (psychiatrists and general practitioners) and patients who had experienced a major depressive episode during the last 12 months using the focus group method. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to define codes, categories and emergent themes.ResultsA total of 26 physicians and 24 patients were included in the study. The focus groups showed balanced sex and age distributions. Most participants owned a smartphone (83.3% of patients, 96.1% of physicians) and were app users (79.2% of patients and 96.1% of physicians). The qualitative content analysis revealed 3 main themes: content, operating characteristics and barriers to the use of the app. Expected content included the data collected by the app, aiming to provide information about the patient, data provided by the app, gathering psychoeducation elements, therapeutic tools and functionalities to help with the management of daily life and features expected for this tool. The "operating characteristics" theme gathered aims considered for the app, its potential target users, considered modalities of use and considerations around its accessibility and security of use. Finally, barriers to the use of the app included concerns about potential app users, its accessibility, safety, side-effects, utility and functioning. All themes and categories were the same for patients and physicians.ConclusionsPhysician and patient expectations of a hypothetical smartphone app dedicated to depression are high and confirmed the important role it could play in depression care. The key points expected by the users for such a tool are an easy and intuitive use and a personalised content. They are also waiting for an app that gives information about depression, offers a self-monitoring functionality and helps them in case of emergency.

Project description:ImportanceUp-front treatment of older men with low-risk prostate cancer can cause morbidity without clear survival benefit; however, most such patients receive treatment instead of observation. The impact of physicians on the management approach is uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine the impact of physicians on the management of low-risk prostate cancer with up-front treatment vs observation.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort of men 66 years and older with low-risk prostate cancer diagnosed from 2006 through 2009. Patient and tumor characteristics were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. The diagnosing urologist, consulting radiation oncologist, cancer-directed therapy, and comorbid medical conditions were determined from linked Medicare claims. Physician characteristics were obtained from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. Mixed-effects models were used to evaluate management variation and factors associated with observation.Main outcomes and measuresNo cancer-directed therapy within 12 months of diagnosis (observation).ResultsA total of 2145 urologists diagnosed low-risk prostate cancer in 12,068 men, of whom 80.1% received treatment and 19.9% were observed. The case-adjusted rate of observation varied widely across urologists, ranging from 4.5% to 64.2% of patients. The diagnosing urologist accounted for 16.1% of the variation in up-front treatment vs observation, whereas patient and tumor characteristics accounted for 7.9% of this variation. After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, urologists who treat non-low-risk prostate cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.55-0.92]; P = .01) and graduated in earlier decades (P = .004) were less likely to manage low-risk disease with observation. Treated patients were more likely to undergo prostatectomy (aOR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.45-2.01]; P < .001), cryotherapy (aOR, 28.2 [95% CI, 19.5-40.9]; P < .001), brachytherapy (aOR, 3.41 [95% CI, 2.96-3.93]; P < .001), or external-beam radiotherapy (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.08-1.58]; P = .005) if their urologist billed for that treatment. Case-adjusted rates of observation also varied across consulting radiation oncologists, ranging from 2.2% to 46.8% of patients.Conclusions and relevanceRates of management of low-risk prostate cancer with observation varied widely across urologists and radiation oncologists. Patients whose diagnosis was made by urologists who treated prostate cancer were more likely to receive up-front treatment and, when treated, more likely to receive a treatment that their urologist performed. Public reporting of physicians' cancer management profiles would enable informed selection of physicians to diagnose and manage prostate cancer.

Project description:ImportanceActive surveillance in men with less aggressive prostate cancer is inconsistently used despite clinical guidelines. Renumeration generally favors treatment over conservative management and may contribute to the variable adoption of active surveillance, which suggests that value-based payment incentives may promote guideline-concordant care.ObjectiveTo describe the adoption of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer, following the initiation of a novel payment incentive sponsored by a commercial payer to support its use.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2015 to 2021 with data registered with the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC), a statewide quality-improvement collaborative of practicing urologists. Eligible participants were men with newly diagnosed low-risk or low-volume, favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who were eligible for active surveillance. Data were analyzed from January 2015 through December 2021.ExposureHealth insurance payment incentive established between June 9, 2017, and September 30, 2018, to encourage active surveillance adoption within MUSIC. Upon meeting the target (ie, at least 72% of men with low-risk disease consider or initiate surveillance), the insurer would provide enhanced reimbursement on claims covered by preferred provider organization plans independent of diagnosis.Main outcomes and measuresActive surveillance adoption relative to the preincentive period among men with low-risk prostate cancer. Secondary analyses examined practices by baseline surveillance use and proportion of patients with eligible insurance plans, as well as patients with favorable intermediate-risk disease.ResultsWe identified 15 273 patients (median [IQR] age, 65 [59-70] years), of whom 10 457 (68.5%) had low-risk disease. The percentage of these men electing for surveillance increased, from 54.4% in 2015 (729 of 1340 men) to 84.1% in 2021 (1089 of 1295 men). Relative to the preincentive period, the payment incentive was not associated with increased surveillance use among patients with low-risk disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.75-1.24) during its application. Secondary analyses similarly did not demonstrate an association between the payment incentive and active surveillance adoption.Conclusions and relevanceA payment incentive was not associated with increased active surveillance adoption in men with low-risk prostate cancer relative to the preincentive period. Value-based reimbursement incentives may require tailored implementation that considers existing reimbursement policy and practice characteristics to improve prostate cancer care quality.

Dataset Information

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets