Dataset Information

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Shared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician-patient interaction.

Design

Cross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon.

Setting and participants

Field notes from participant observations were collected at n=54?outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany.

Results

Most of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were 'active' (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients.

Conclusion

Most of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Hahlweg P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5623495 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice.

Hahlweg Pola P Härter Martin M Nestoriuc Yvonne Y Scholl Isabelle I

BMJ open 20170927 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>Shared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of cu ...[more]

PMID: 28963286

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExternal randomised pilot trials help researchers decide whether, and how, to do a future definitive randomised trial. The progression criteria are often prespecified to inform the interpretation of pilot trial findings and subsequent progression decision-making. We aimed to explore and understand the perspectives and experiences of key stakeholders when making progression decisions following external pilot trials.MethodsThirty-five remote semi-structured interviews with external randomised pilot trial team members including chief investigators, trial managers, statisticians and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives. Questions focussed on experiences and perceptions of pilot trial progression decisions and whether and how progression criteria informed this decision. Data were analysed using the framework method approach to thematic analysis. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness and rigour were used.ResultsInterviews were conducted between December 2020 and July 2021. Six descriptive themes were developed to capture the experiences and perspectives of participants. These were (1) divided opinions on the value and development of progression criteria, (2) (avoiding) the potential for personal interest to influence progression criteria and progression decision-making, (3) stakeholder engagement in setting progression criteria and making progression decisions, (4) lessons learned from doing the pilot trial and their impact on progression criteria applicability, (5) other factors that inform the progression decision and (6) progression of external randomised pilot trials-funding considerations and constraints. These themes were underpinned by an overarching interpretative theme 'a one-size approach to progression does not fit all' to describe the highly nuanced and complex decision-making process that occurs following external randomised pilot trials. The progression criteria are rarely the only consideration informing the decision to progress to future research; unanticipated events, signals of efficacy and continuity of the research team are other factors that researchers consider.ConclusionsOne size does not fit all when it comes to the progression criteria and pilot trial progression. The progression criteria are only one of many considerations researchers have when deciding whether a pilot trial is feasible. External pilot trial progression is not guaranteed even when a pilot trial is considered feasible (based on the progression criteria and/or other considerations), indicating inefficiency and potential research waste.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/5N2KZ.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals with a positive viral test were enrolled in a study, within 48 hours, to remotely monitor their vital signs to characterize disease progression and recovery. A virtual trial design was adopted to reduce risks to participants and the research community in a study titled Risk Stratification and Early Alerting Regarding COVID-19 Hospitalization (RiskSEARCH). The Food and Drug Administration-cleared Current Health platform with a wearable device is a continuous remote patient monitoring technology that supports hospital-at-home care and is used as a data collection tool. Enrolled participants wore the Current Health wearable device continuously for up to 30 days and took a daily symptom survey via a tablet that was provided. A qualitative substudy was conducted in parallel to better understand virtual trial implementation, including barriers and facilitators for participants.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators of the user experience of interacting with a virtual care platform and research team, while participating in a fully virtual study using qualitative and quantitative data.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted to understand participants' experience of participating in a virtual study during a global pandemic. The schedule included their experience of enrollment and their interactions with equipment and study staff. A total of 3 RiskSEARCH participants were interviewed over telephone, and transcriptions were inductively coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify and describe the factors that influenced study adherence. Quantitative metrics, including adherence to wearable and scheduled tasks collected as part of the RiskSEARCH main study, were paired with the interviews to present an overall picture of participation.ResultsAll participants exceeded our definition of a fully adherent participant and reported that participation was feasible and had a low burden. The symptoms progressively resolved during the trial. Inductive thematic analysis identified 13 main themes from the interview data, which were deductively mapped onto 11 of the 14 TDF domains, highlighting barriers and facilitators for each.ConclusionsParticipants in the RiskSEARCH substudy showed high levels of adherence and engagement throughout participation. Although participants experienced some challenges in setting up and maintaining the Current Health kit (eg, charging devices), they reported feeling that the requirements of participation were both reasonable and realistic. We demonstrated that the TDF can be used for inductive thematic analysis. We anticipate expanding this work in future virtual studies and trials to identify barriers and enabling factors for implementation.

Project description:Guidelines encourage relevant information exchange between pharmaceutical staff and patients during self-medication consultation. Thereby, assessing the patient's situation and providing information is crucial for patient safety. So far, limited studies have investigated this information exchange, particularly in Germany. We aimed to assess the attitude towards and the current practice of guideline-recommended information exchange in German community pharmacies. In total, twelve guideline-recommended parameters were predefined for gathering patient-related information and for the provision of information. These information exchange parameters were evaluated in two parts: Firstly, in a self-report of pharmaceutical staff via an online questionnaire to assess the reported importance, difficulty and frequency of the parameters as well as barriers to their implementation; secondly, in a non-participant observation in five pharmacies to evaluate the actual consultation practice. In the self-report, all parameters were rated by more than 76% of 1068 participants as important. 'Concurrent medication' was determined to be the most difficult parameter to address (54%). All parameters of information gathering were rated to be addressed during routine counselling by at least 70% of the respondents. Parameters of information provision were all rated to be addressed by at least 45%. 'Lack of patient's interest' was identified as the most frequent barrier to appropriate counselling (84%). During the observation, the information gathering parameters were each addressed between 8 to 63% in the consultations, parameters of information provision between 3 to 34%. Despite broad acceptance, the guideline parameters of information exchange were comparatively little addressed during the actual routine care. This might be due to a perceived 'lack of patient's interest' in counselling. Our results suggest to scrutinize whether patients are in fact not interested in counselling and to further explore how the positive intention of pharmaceutical staff towards information exchange can be further translated into everyday practice.

Dataset Information

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice.

Objectives

Design

Setting and participants

Results

Conclusion

Publications

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets