A qualitative examination of patient priorities and preferences during treatment decision-making for recurrent head and neck cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Patients with recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) may feel overwhelmed at the prospect of having to consider treatment options particularly if they recently completed treatment for their primary disease or when they have no options that may lead to long-term survival. The purpose of this study was to examine patient priorities and preferences during treatment decision-making for recurrent HNC.Methods
Individuals with newly diagnosed recurrent HNC were recruited at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Participants were interviewed using a structured interview guide. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participants, and qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data.Results
Participants (n = 38) considered information from healthcare providers, likelihood of treatment success, and other patient-specific factors in making their treatment decisions.Conclusions
Although patients with recurrent HNC endorse a myriad of decision-making factors, the recommendation of their healthcare provider and the likelihood of treatment success are of paramount importance. Future research should focus on methods to rapidly identify patient priorities at the time of diagnosed recurrence while respecting patient coping and communication styles.
SUBMITTER: Rhoten BA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7644586 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To explore the degree to which physicians report reliance on patient preferences when making medical decisions for hospitalized patients lacking decisional capacity.Cross-sectional survey.One academic and two community hospitals in a single metropolitan area.Two hundred eighty-one physicians who recently cared for hospitalized adults.A self-administered survey addressing physicians' beliefs about ethical principles guiding surrogate decision-making and physicians' recent decision-making experiences.Overall, 72.6% of physicians identified a standard related to patient preferences as the most important ethical standard for surrogate decision-making (61.2% identified advanced directives and 11.4% substituted judgment). Of the 73.3% of physicians who reported recently making a surrogate decision, 81.8% reported that patient preferences were highly important in decision-making, although only 29.4% reported that patient preference was the most important factor in the decision. Physicians were significantly more likely to base decisions on patient preferences when the patient was in the intensive care unit (odds ratio (OR)=2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.15-7.45) and less likely when the patient was older (OR=0.76 for each decade of age, 95% CI=0.58-0.99). The presence of a living will, prior discussions with the patient, and the physicians' beliefs about ethical guidelines did not significantly predict the physicians' reliance on patient preferences.Although a majority of physicians identified patient preferences as the most important general ethical guideline for surrogate decision-making, they relied on a variety of factors when making treatment decisions for a patient lacking decisional capacity.
| S-EPMC3513265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo assess bounds of shared decision making in orthopaedic surgery, we conducted an exploratory study to examine the extent to which patients want to be involved in decision making in the management of a musculoskeletal condition.MethodsOne hundred fifteen patients at an orthopaedic surgery clinic were asked to rate preferred level of involvement in 25 common theoretical clinical decisions (passive [0], semipassive [1 to 4], equally shared involvement between patient and surgeon [5], semiactive [6 to 9], active [10]).ResultsPatients preferred semipassive roles in 92% of decisions assessed. Patients wanted to be most involved in scheduling surgical treatments (4.75 ± 2.65) and least involved in determining incision sizes (1.13 ± 1.98). No difference exists in desired decision-making responsibility between patients who had undergone orthopaedic surgery previously and those who had not. Younger and educated patients preferred more decision-making responsibility. Those with Medicare desired more passive roles.DiscussionDespite the importance of shared decision making on delivering patient-centered care, our results suggest that patients do not prefer to share all decisions.
| S-EPMC8080702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProviders have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations.ObjectiveTo describe the decision-making process for establishing consensus used by a diverse panel of stakeholders to reconcile two sets of quality improvement priorities (provider/decision maker priorities n=9; patient/family priorities n=19) into a single prioritized list.DesignWe employed a modified Delphi process with a diverse group of panellists to reconcile priorities for improving care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis to explore the decision-making process for establishing consensus.Setting and participantsNine panellists including three providers, three decision makers and three family members of previously critically ill patients.ResultsPanellists rated and revised 28 priorities over three rounds of review and reached consensus on the "Top 5" priorities for quality improvement: transition of patient care from ICU to hospital ward; family presence and effective communication; delirium screening and management; early mobilization; and transition of patient care between ICU providers. Four themes were identified as important for establishing consensus: storytelling (sharing personal experiences), amalgamating priorities (negotiating priority scope), considering evaluation criteria and having a priority champion.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating families of patients into a multistakeholder prioritization exercise. The approach described can be used to guide consensus building and reconcile priorities of diverse stakeholder groups.
| S-EPMC5689241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:New diagnostic methods and novel therapeutic agents spawn additional and heterogeneous information, leading to an increasingly complex decision-making process for optimal treatment of cancer. A great amount of information is collected in organ-specific multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs). By considering the patient's tumor properties, molecular pathological test results, and comorbidities, the MDTB has to consent an evidence-based treatment decision. Immunotherapies are increasingly important in today's cancer treatment, resulting in detailed information that influences the decision-making process. Clinical decision support systems can facilitate a better understanding via processing of multiple datasets of oncological cases and molecular genetic information, potentially fostering transparency and comprehensibility of available information, eventually leading to an optimum treatment decision for the individual patient. We constructed a digital patient model based on Bayesian networks to combine the relevant patient-specific and molecular data with depended probabilities derived from pertinent studies and clinical guidelines to calculate treatment decisions in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). In a validation analysis, the model can provide guidance within the growing subject of immunotherapy in HNSCC and, based on its ability to calculate reliable probabilities, facilitates estimation of suitable therapy options. We compared actual treatment decisions of 25 patients with the calculated recommendations of our model and found significant concordance (Cohen's κ = 0.505, p = 0.009) and 84% accuracy.
| S-EPMC8657168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical decision-making is critical to patient survival and well-being. Patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) are faced with incrementally complex decision-making throughout their treatment journey. The extent to which patients seek involvement in the decision-making process and factors which influence these in ESRD need to be understood.Methods535 ESRD patients were enrolled into the cross-sectional study arm and 30 patients who started dialysis were prospectively evaluated. Patients were enrolled into 3 groups- 'predialysis' (group A), 'in-centre' haemodialysis (HD) (group B) and self-care HD (93 % at home-group C) from across five tertiary UK renal centres. The Autonomy Preference Index (API) has been employed to study patient preferences for information-seeking (IS) and decision-making (DM). Demographic, psychosocial and neuropsychometric assessments are considered for analyses.Results458 complete responses were available. API items have high internal consistency in the study population (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70). Overall and across individual study groups, the scores for information-seeking and decision-making are significantly different indicating that although patients had a strong preference to be well informed, they were more neutral in their preference to participate in DM (p < 0.05). In the age, education and study group adjusted multiple linear regression analysis, lower age, female gender, marital status; higher API IS scores and white ethnicity background were significant predictors of preference for decision-making. DM scores were subdivided into tertiles to identify variables associated with high (DM > 70: and low DM (≤30) scores. This shows association of higher DM scores with lower age, lower comorbidity index score, higher executive brain function, belonging in the self-caring cohort and being unemployed. In the prospectively studied cohort of predialysis patients, there was no change in decision-making preference scores after commencement of dialysis.ConclusionESRD patients prefer to receive information, but this does not always imply active involvement in decision-making. By understanding modifiable and non-modifiable factors which affect patient preferences for involvement in healthcare decision-making, health professionals may acknowledge the need to accommodate individual patient preferences to the extent determined by the individual patient factors.
| S-EPMC4647276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPregnant women with prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence. Low molecular weight heparin (LWMH) reduces the risk of pregnancy-related VTE. LMWH prophylaxis is, however, inconvenient, uncomfortable, costly, medicalizes pregnancy, and may be associated with increased risks of obstetrical bleeding. Further, there is uncertainty in the estimates of both the baseline risk of pregnancy-related recurrent VTE and the effects of antepartum LMWH prophylaxis. The values and treatment preferences of pregnant women, crucial when making recommendations for prophylaxis, are currently unknown. The objective of this study is to address this gap in knowledge.MethodsWe will perform a multi-center cross-sectional interview study in Canada, USA, Norway and Finland. The study population will consist of 100 women with a history of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), and who are either pregnant, planning pregnancy, or may in the future consider pregnancy (women between 18 and 45 years). We will exclude individuals who are on full dose anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis, who have undergone surgical sterilization, or whose partners have undergone vasectomy. We will determine each participant's willingness to receive LMWH prophylaxis during pregnancy through direct choice exercises based on real life and hypothetical scenarios, preference-elicitation using a visual analog scale ("feeling thermometer"), and a probability trade-off exercise. The primary outcome will be the minimum reduction (threshold) in VTE risk at which women change from declining to accepting LMWH prophylaxis. We will explore possible determinants of this choice, including educational attainment, the characteristics of the women's prior VTE, and prior experience with LMWH. We will determine the utilities that women place on the burden of LMWH prophylaxis, pregnancy-related DVT, pregnancy-related PE and pregnancy-related hemorrhage. We will generate a "personalized decision analysis" using participants' utilities and their personalized risk of recurrent VTE as inputs to a decision analytic model. We will compare the personalized decision analysis to the participant's stated choice.DiscussionThe preferences of pregnant women at risk of VTE with respect to the use of antithrombotic therapy remain unexplored. This research will provide explicit, quantitative expressions of women's valuations of health states related to recurrent VTE and its prevention with LMWH. This information will be crucial for both guideline developers and for clinicians.
| S-EPMC3495041 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurrogate accuracy in predicting patient treatment preferences (i.e., what patients want) has been studied extensively, but it is not known whether surrogates can predict how patients want loved ones to make end-of-life decisions on their behalf.ObjectiveTo evaluate the ability of family members to correctly identify the preferences of seriously-ill patients regarding family involvement in decision making.DesignCross-sectional survey.ParticipantsTwenty-five pancreatic cancer and 27 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients and their family members (52 dyads total).Main measuresPatients and family members completed the Decision Control Preferences (DCP) scale regarding patient preferences for family involvement in health care decisions using conscious and unconscious scenarios.Key resultsPatient and family member agreement was 56% (29/52 dyads) for the conscious scenario (kappa 0.29) and 46% (24/52 dyads) for the unconscious scenario (kappa 0.15). Twenty-four family members identified the patient's preference as independent in the unconscious scenario, but six of these patients actually preferred shared decision making and six preferred reliant decision making. In the conscious scenario, preference for independent decision making was associated with higher odds of patient-family agreement (AOR 5.28, 1.07-26.06). In the unconscious scenario, cancer patients had a higher odds of agreement than ALS patients (AOR 3.86; 95% CI 1.02-14.54).ConclusionFamily members were often unable to correctly identify patient preferences for family involvement in end-of-life decision making, especially when patients desired that decisions be made using the best-interest standard. Clinicians and family members should consider explicitly eliciting patient preferences for family involvement in decision making. Additional research is still needed to identify interventions to improve family member understanding of patient preferences regarding the decision-making process itself.
| S-EPMC3138973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe profound changes in medical care and the recent stress on a patient-centered approach mandate evaluation of current patient priorities.MethodsHospitalized and ambulatory patients at an academic medical center in central Israel were investigated. Consecutive patients (n = 274) indicated their first and second priority for a change or improvement in their medical care out of a mixed shortlist of 6 issues, 3 related to patient-physician relationship (being better informed and taking part in decisions; being seen by the same doctor each time; a longer consultation time) and 3 issues related to the organizational aspect of care (easier access to specialists/hospital; shorter queue for tests; less charges for drugs).ResultsGetting more information from the physician and taking part in decisions was the most desirable patient choice, selected by 27.4% as their first priority. The next choices - access and queue - also relate to more patient autonomy and control over that of managed care regulations. Patients studied were least interested in continuity of care, consultation time or cost of drugs. Demographic or clinical variables were not significantly related to patients' choices.ConclusionBeyond its many benefits, being informed by their doctor and shared decision making is a top patient priority.
| S-EPMC1431526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Shared Decision-Making (SDM) is an inclusive approach where patients and providers work in partnership to make health care decisions that are grounded in clinical best practice and align with patient preferences and values. Despite a growing recognition that SDM can lead to improved outcomes and reductions in unnecessary health investigations, tensions exist between patient agency and a historically paternalistic model of health care. As an evolving ideology, the Research Team sought to better understand the current state, challenges, and implementation opportunities of SDM practices across the health system. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional quality improvement design utilizing semistructured interviews to gather information from focus group participants. Five open-ended, qualitative questions were used to generate discussion on the perceptions of SDM and its role in clinical appropriateness in a variety of clinical contexts in our health system. A total of 12 focus groups (n = 95 participants) representative of patients and families, leaders, physicians, and frontline clinicians were engaged in the study. Results: Through a consensus-based approach, study results identified 4 recommendations based on 4 themes: Time, Communication, System Design, and Clinical Appropriateness. Conclusion: There are no easy solutions to the challenges of enabling SDM; however, success will be dependent upon recognizing the importance of patient agency, while maintaining an inclusive and continuous stakeholder engagement with both patients and providers. Implementation of the 4 recommendations at the organizational level highlighted in this study can serve as a road map for other health care institutions and will require a gradual approach to transform the general principles of SDM into tangible solutions to meet the emerging needs at both the local and system level.
| S-EPMC8652304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emotional states such as sadness, anger, and threat have been shown to play a critical role in decision-making processes. Here we addressed the question of whether risk preferences are influenced by postural threat and whether this influence generalizes across motor tasks. We examined risk attitudes in the context of arm-reaching (ARM) and whole-body (WB) leaning movements, expecting that increased postural threat would lead to proportionally similar changes in risk-sensitivity for each motor task. Healthy young adults were shown a series of two-alternative forced-choice lotteries, where they were asked to choose between a riskier lottery and a safer lottery on each trial. Our lotteries consisted of different monetary rewards and target sizes. Subjects performed each choice task at ground level and atop an elevated platform. In the presence of this postural threat, increased physiological arousal was correlated with decreased movement variability. To determine risk-sensitivity, we quantified the frequency with which a subject chose the riskier lottery and fit lottery responses to a choice model based on cumulative prospect theory (CPT). Subjects exhibited idiosyncratic changes in risk-sensitivity between motor tasks and between elevations. However, we found that overweighting of small probabilities increased with postural threat in the WB task, indicating a more cautious, risk-averse strategy is ascribed to the possibility of a fall. Subjects were also more risk-seeking in the WB movements than in ARM at low elevation; this behavior does not seem to derive from consistent distortions in utility or probability representations but may be explained by subjects' inaccurate estimation of their own motor variability. Overall, our findings suggest that implicit threat can modify risk attitudes in the motor domain, and the threat may induce risk-aversion in salient movement tasks.
| S-EPMC4460527 | biostudies-other