Dataset Information

Patient experiences of decision-making in the treatment of spinal metastases: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the treatment of spinal metastases the risks of surgery must be balanced against potential benefits, particularly in light of limited life-expectancy. Patient experiences and preferences regarding decision-making in this context are not well explored.

Purpose

We performed a qualitative study involving patients receiving treatment for spinal metastatic disease. We sought to understand factors that influenced decision-making around care for spinal metastases.

Study setting

Three tertiary academic medical centers.

Patient sample

We recruited patients presenting for treatment of spinal metastatic disease at one of three tertiary centers in Boston, MA.

Outcome measures

We conducted semistructured interviews using a guide that probed participants' experiences with making treatment decisions.

Methods

We performed a thematic analysis that produced a list of themes, subthemes, and statement explaining how the themes related to the study's guiding questions. Patients were recruited until thematic saturation was reached.

Results

We interviewed 23 participants before reaching thematic saturation. The enormity of treatment decisions, and of the diagnosis of spinal metastases itself, shaped participant preferences for who should take responsibility for the decision and whether to accept treatments bearing greater risk of complications. Pre-existing participant beliefs about decision-making and about surgery interacted with the clinical context in a way that tended to promote accepting physician recommendations and delaying or avoiding surgery.

Conclusions

The diagnosis of spinal metastatic disease played an outsized role in shaping participant preferences for agency in treatment decision-making. Further research should address strategies to support patient understanding of treatment options in clinical contexts-such as spinal metastases-characterized by ominous underlying disease and high-risk, often urgent interventions.

SUBMITTER: Lape EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7246131 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective management of metastatic disease requires multidisciplinary input and entails high risk of disease-related and treatment-related morbidity and mortality. The factors that influence clinician decision-making around spinal metastases are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study that included a multidisciplinary cohort of physicians to evaluate the decision-making process for treatment of spinal metastases from the clinician's perspective.MethodsWe recruited operative and nonoperative clinicians, including orthopaedic spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and physiatrists, from across North America to participate in either a focus group or a semistructured interview. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. We then performed a thematic analysis using all of the available transcript data. Investigators sequentially coded transcripts and identified recurring themes that encompass overarching patterns in the data and directly bear on the guiding study question. This was followed by the development of a thematic map that visually portrays the themes, the subthemes, and their interrelatedness, as well as their influence on treatment decision-making.ResultsThe thematic analysis revealed that numerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including clinical elements of the disease process, treatment guidelines, patient preferences, and the dynamics of the multidisciplinary care team. The most prominent feature that resonated across all of the interviews was the importance of multidisciplinary care and the necessity of cohesion among a team of diverse health-care providers. Respondents emphasized aspects of care-team dynamics, including effective communication and intimate knowledge of team-member preferences, as necessary for the development of appropriate treatment strategies. Participants maintained that the primary role in decision-making should remain with the patient.ConclusionsNumerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including multidisciplinary team dynamics, business pressure, and clinician experience. Participants maintained a focus on shared decision-making with patients, which contrasts with patient preferences to defer decisions to the physician, as described in prior work.Clinical relevanceThe results of this thematic analysis document the numerous factors that influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases. Our results indicate that provider decisions regarding treatment are influenced by a combination of clinical characteristics, perceptions of patient quality of life, and the patient's preferences for care.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore older people's perspectives and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) about medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.Design, setting and participantsSemi-structured interviews with 30 general practice patients aged 75 years and older in New South Wales, Australia, who had elevated CVD risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol) or had received CVD-related lifestyle advice. Data were analysed by multiple researchers using Framework analysis.ResultsTwenty eight participants out of 30 were on CVD prevention medication, half with established CVD. We outlined patient experiences using the four steps of the SDM process, identifying key barriers and challenges: Step 1. Choice awareness: taking medication for CVD prevention was generally not recognised as a decision requiring patient input; Step 2. Discuss benefits/harms options: CVD prevention poorly understood with emphasis on benefits; Step 3. Explore preferences: goals, values and preferences (eg, length of life vs quality of life, reducing disease burden vs risk reduction) varied widely but generally not discussed with the general practitioner; Step 4. Making the decision: overall preference for directive approach, but some patients wanted more active involvement. Themes were similar across primary and secondary CVD prevention, different levels of self-reported health and people on and off medication.ConclusionsResults demonstrate how older participants vary widely in their health goals and preferences for treatment outcomes, suggesting that CVD prevention decisions are preference sensitive. Combined with the fact that the vast majority of participants were taking medications, and few understood the aims and potential benefits and harms of CVD prevention, it seems that older patients are not always making an informed decision. Our findings highlight potentially modifiable barriers to greater participation of older people in SDM about CVD prevention medication and prevention in general.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This is the first qualitative study to explore patient decision-making regarding end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treatment in sub-Saharan Africa. The study addresses an important gap in the literature concerning choice and decision-making in an international context. METHODS:The study employed a qualitative research design, using grounded theory methodology. In-depth interviews were conducted with twenty-two adult patients with ESKD in 3 clinical settings in Ghana. Data analysis involved coding and a constant comparative approach to generate key themes. Ethical approval was gained from relevant ethics committees both in Ghana and the United Kingdom. RESULTS:Four main factors (personal, financial, healthcare system, and support network) were identified to influence patient decision-making regarding ESKD treatment in Ghana. Treatment was initiated for various reasons, including, initially, the urgent need to avoid premature death. Many approached their condition hoping for a cure and did not always understand the chronic nature of their condition. Financial and geographical inaccessibility of renal replacement therapy (RRT), as well as a relative lack of biomedical treatment choices, made decision making daunting for the individual with ESKD in Ghana. The subject of death or conservative management was not openly discussed. Rather patients did everything possible to seek alternative forms of treatment, including the simultaneous use of other non-RRT and traditional or faith-based healing approaches. CONCLUSIONS:Whilst similarities exist, this study illuminates stark cultural and contextual differences which make decision-making on ESKD treatment a daunting experience for the individual with ESKD in Ghana - as compared to those in high-income countries. The challenges associated with ESKD management in Ghana calls for meticulous efforts at primary prevention of the disease, including interventions directed at effective management of diabetes mellitus, hypertension and other chronic kidney disease (CKD) precursor conditions. Enhancing information provision would promote informed decision making, particularly within the initial stages of patient decision-making.

Project description:ObjectivesLittle is known about the cancer experience and support needs of people with dementia. In particular, no evidence currently exists to demonstrate the likely complex decision-making processes for this patient group and the oncology healthcare professionals (HCP) involved in their care. The aim of this study was to explore the cancer-related information needs and decision-making experiences of patients with cancer and comorbid dementia, their informal caregivers and oncology HCPs.DesignCross-sectional qualitative study. Semistructured interviews were conducted face to face with participants. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed prior to thematic analysis.SettingPatients with a diagnosis of cancer and dementia, their informal caregivers and oncology HCPs involved in their care, all recruited from a regional treatment cancer centre.ParticipantsPurposeful sample of 10 patients with a diagnosis of cancer-dementia, informal caregivers (n=9) and oncology HCPs (n=12).ResultsFour themes were identified: (1) leading to the initial consultation-HCPs require more detailed information on the functional impact of dementia and how it may influence cancer treatment options prior to meeting the patient; (2) communicating clinically relevant information-informal caregivers are relied on to provide patient information, advocate for the patient and support decision-making; (3) adjustments to cancer care-patients with dementia get through treatment with the help of their family and (4) following completion of cancer treatment-there are continuing information needs. Oncology HCPs discussed their need to consult specialists in dementia care to support treatment decision-making.ConclusionsAlthough patients with cancer-dementia are involved in their treatment decision-making, informal caregivers are generally crucial in supporting this process. Individual patient needs and circumstances related to their cancer must be considered in the context of dementia prognosis highlighting complexities of decision-making in this population. Oncology teams should strive to involve healthcare staff with dementia expertise as early as possible in the cancer pathway.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore patients' and physicians' perspectives on a decision-making conversation for life-sustaining treatment, based on the Danish model of the American Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form.DesignSemi-structured interviews following a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.SettingDanish hospitals, nursing homes, and general practitioners' clinics.SubjectsPatients and physicians.Main outcome measuresQualitative analyses of interview data.FindingsAfter participating in a conversation about life-sustaining treatment using the Danish POLST form, a total of six patients and five physicians representing different settings and age groups participated in an interview about their experience of the process. Within the main research questions, six subthemes were identified: Timing, relatives are key persons, clarifying treatment preferences, documentation across settings, strengthening patient autonomy, and structure influences conversations. Most patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable but also complicated due to the different levels of knowledge and attending to individual patient needs and medical necessities. Relatives were considered as key persons to ensure the understanding of the treatment trajectory and the ability to advocate for the patient in case of a medical crisis. The majority of participants found that the conversation strengthened patient autonomy.ConclusionPatients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable, especially for strengthening patient autonomy. Relatives were considered key persons. The timing of the conversation and securing sufficient knowledge for shared decision-making were the main perceived challenges.KEY POINTSConversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment are important, but not performed systematically.When planning a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment, the timing of the conversation and the inclusion of relatives are key elements.Decision-making conversations can help patients feel in charge and less alone, and make it easier for health professionals to provide goal-concordant care.Using a model like the Danish POLST form may help to initiate, conduct and structure conversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.