Dataset Information

Side Effect Perceptions and Their Impact on Treatment Decisions in Women.

ABSTRACT: Side effects prompt some patients to forego otherwise-beneficial therapies. This study explored which characteristics make side effects particularly aversive.We used a psychometric approach, originating from research on risk perception, to identify the factors (or components) underlying side effect perceptions. Women ( N = 149) aged 40 to 74 years were recruited from a patient registry to complete an online experiment. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios in which an effective and necessary medication conferred a small risk of a single side effect (e.g., nausea, dizziness). They rated a broad range of side effects on several characteristics (e.g., embarrassing, treatable). In addition, we collected 4 measures of aversiveness for each side effect: choosing to take the medication, willingness to pay to avoid the side effect (WTP), negative affective attitude associated with the side effect, and how each side effect ranks among others in terms of undesirability. A principal components analysis (PCA) was used to identify the components underlying side effect perceptions. Then, for each aversiveness measure separately, regression analyses were used to determine which components predicted differences in aversiveness among the side effects.The PCA revealed 4 components underlying side effect perceptions: affective challenge (e.g., frightening), social challenge (e.g., disfiguring), physical challenge (e.g., painful), and familiarity (e.g., common). Side effects perceived as affectively and physically challenging elicited the highest levels of aversiveness across all 4 measures.Understanding what side effect characteristics are most aversive may inform interventions to improve medical decisions and facilitate the translation of novel biomedical therapies into clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Waters EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5121093 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Side Effect Perceptions and Their Impact on Treatment Decisions in Women.

Waters Erika A EA Pachur Thorsten T Colditz Graham A GA

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20160710 3

<h4>Background</h4>Side effects prompt some patients to forego otherwise-beneficial therapies. This study explored which characteristics make side effects particularly aversive.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a psychometric approach, originating from research on risk perception, to identify the factors (or components) underlying side effect perceptions. Women ( N = 149) aged 40 to 74 years were recruited from a patient registry to complete an online experiment. Participants were presented with hypotheti ...[more]

PMID: 27216581

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWomen outnumber men in US medical school enrollment, but they represent less than 40% of academic oncology faculty.ObjectiveTo identify the key factors associated with female oncologists' decision to pursue academic or nonacademic oncology practice and to characterize their perceptions about their current career.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional survey study was distributed through email and social media to female physicians in academic and nonacademic oncology practice in the United States. The survey was open for 3 months, from August 1 to October 31, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresNo single primary study outcome was established because of the cross-sectional nature of the survey. Data were collected anonymously and analyzed using t tests for continuous variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables.ResultsAmong the 667 female respondents, 422 (63.2%) identified as academic oncologists and 245 (36.8%) identified as nonacademic oncologists. Approximately 25% of respondents reported that their spouse or partner (156 [23.5%]) and/or family (176 [26.4%]) extremely or moderately affected their decision to pursue academic practice. Academic oncologists perceived the biggest sacrifice of pursuing academics to be time with loved ones (181 [42.9%]). Nonacademic oncologists perceived the biggest sacrifice of pursuing academics to be pressure for academic promotion (102 [41.6%]). Respondents had different perceptions of how their gender affected their ability to obtain a chosen job, with 116 academic oncologists (27.6%) and 101 nonacademic oncologists (41.2%) reporting a positive or somewhat positive impact (P = .001). More than half of the women surveyed (54.6% academic oncologists [230]; 50.6% nonacademic oncologists [123]; P = .61) believed they were less likely to be promoted compared with male colleagues. Academic and nonacademic oncologists reported rarely or never having a sense of belonging in their work environment (33 [7.9%] and 5 [2.0%]; P < .001). Most respondents reported that they would choose the same career path again (301 academic oncologists [71.3%]; 168 nonacademic oncologists [68.6%]); however, 92 academic oncologists (21.9%) reported they were likely to pursue a career outside of academic oncology in the next 5 years.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found that a spouse or partner and/or family were factors in the career choice of both academic and nonacademic oncologists and that female gender was largely perceived to adversely affect job promotion. Given that more than 20% of female academic oncologists were considering leaving academia, gender inequality is at high risk of continuing if the culture is not addressed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Increased usage of genomic risk assessment assays suggests increased reliance on data provided by these assays to guide therapy decisions. The current study aimed to assess the change in treatment decision and physician confidence based on the 70-gene risk of recurrence signature (70-GS, MammaPrint) and the 80-gene molecular subtype signature (80-GS, BluePrint) in early stage breast cancer patients. METHODS:IMPACt, a prospective, case-only study, enrolled 452 patients between November 2015 and August 2017. The primary objective population included 358 patients with stage I-II, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. The recommended treatment plan and physician confidence were captured before and after receiving results for 70-GS and 80-GS. Treatment was started after obtaining results. The distribution of 70-GS High Risk (HR) and Low Risk (LR) patients was evaluated, in addition to the distribution of 80-GS compared to IHC status. RESULTS:The 70-GS classified 62.5% (n?=?224/358) of patients as LR and 37.5% (n?=?134/358) as HR. Treatment decisions were changed for 24.0% (n?=?86/358) of patients after receiving 70-GS and 80-GS results. Of the LR patients initially prescribed CT, 71.0% (44/62) had CT removed from their treatment recommendation. Of the HR patients not initially prescribed CT, 65.1% (41/63) had CT added. After receiving 70-GS results, CT was included in 83.6% (n?=?112/134) of 70-GS HR patient treatment plans, and 91.5% (n?=?205/224) of 70-GS LR patient treatment plans did not include CT. For patients who disagreed with the treatment recommended by their physicians, most (94.1%, n?=?16/17) elected not to receive CT when it was recommended. For patients whose physician-recommended treatment plan was discordant with 70-GS results, discordance was significantly associated with age and lymph node status. CONCLUSIONS:The IMPACt trial showed that treatment plans were 88.5% (n?=?317/358) in agreement with 70-GS results, indicating that physicians make treatment decisions in clinical practice based on the 70-GS result. In clinically high risk, 70-GS Low Risk patients, there was a 60.0% reduction in treatment recommendations that include CT. Additionally, physicians reported having greater confidence in treatment decisions for their patients in 72% (n?=?258/358) of cases after receiving 70-GS results. TRIAL REGISTRATION:"Measuring the Impact of MammaPrint on Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Treatment in Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Registry" (NCT02670577) retrospectively registered on Jan 27, 2016.

Project description:The use of bone turnover marker (BTM) testing for patients with osteoporosis in the USA has not been well characterized. This retrospective US-based real-world data study found BTM testing has some association with treatment decision-making and lower fracture risk in patients with presumed osteoporosis, supporting its use in clinical practice.IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to characterize bone turnover marker (BTM) testing patterns and estimate their clinical utility in treatment decision-making and fragility fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis using a retrospective claims database.MethodsData from patients aged ≥ 50 years with newly diagnosed osteoporosis enrolled in the Truven MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental and Co-ordination of Benefits databases from January 2008 to June 2018 were included. Osteoporosis was ascertained by explicit claims, fragility fracture events associated with osteoporosis, or prescribed anti-resorptive or anabolic therapy. BTM-tested patients were 1:1 propensity score matched to those untested following diagnosis. Generalized estimating equation models were performed to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for testing versus no testing on both treatment decision-making and fragility fracture.ResultsOf the 457,829 patients with osteoporosis, 6075 were identified with ≥ 1 BTM test following diagnosis; of these patients, 1345 had a unique treatment decision made ≤ 30 days from BTM testing. The percentage of patients receiving BTM tests increased significantly each year (average annual % change: + 8.1%; 95% CI: 5.6-9.0; p = 0.01). Patients tested were significantly more likely to have a treatment decision (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.13-1.15), and testing was associated with lower odds of fracture versus those untested (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.85-0.88).ConclusionIn this large, heterogeneous population of patients with presumed osteoporosis, BTM testing was associated with treatment decision-making, likely leading to fragility fracture reduction following use.

Project description:IntroductionPregnant people have a higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease. They have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 infection control policies, which exacerbated conditions resulting in intimate partner violence, healthcare access, and mental health distress. This project examines the impact of accumulated individual health decisions and describes how perinatal care and health outcomes changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesQuantitative strand: Describe differences between 2019, 2021, and 2022 birth groups related to maternal vaccination, perinatal care, and mental health care. Examine the differential impacts on racialized and low-income pregnant people.Qualitative strand: Understand how pregnant people's perceptions of COVID-19 risk influenced their decision-making about vaccination, perinatal care, social support, and mental health.Methods and analysisThis is a Canadian convergent parallel mixed-methods study. The quantitative strand uses a retrospective cohort design to assess birth group differences in rates of Tdap and COVID-19 vaccination, gestational diabetes screening, length of post-partum hospital stay, and onset of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder, using administrative data from ICES, formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Ontario) and PopulationData BC (PopData) (British Columbia). Differences by socioeconomic and ethnocultural status will also be examined. The qualitative strand employs qualitative description to interview people who gave birth between May 2020- December 2021 about their COVID-19 risk perception and health decision-making process. Data integration will occur during design and interpretation.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from McMaster University and the University of British Columbia. Findings will be disseminated via manuscripts, presentations, and patient-facing infographics.Trial registrationRegistration: Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05663762.

Dataset Information

Side Effect Perceptions and Their Impact on Treatment Decisions in Women.

Publications

Side Effect Perceptions and Their Impact on Treatment Decisions in Women.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets