Patient, Family Member and Physician Perspectives and Experiences with AML Treatment Decision-Making.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Treatment decisions in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are challenging, particularly for those who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy (IC), and the trade-offs patients, their families and physicians consider when choosing a treatment option are not well understood. This qualitative research explored the value of extending survival and the treatment decision-making process from a multi-stakeholder perspective.Methods
Overall, 28 patients with AML (≥ 65 years old, unsuitable for IC), 25 of their relatives and 10 independent physicians from the US, UK and Canada took part in one-on-one, 60-minute qualitative interviews.Results
Across all stakeholders, improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL), extended survival and relief of AML symptoms were recognized as most important in AML treatment decision-making. However, extending survival in 'good health' was more important than extending survival alone, particularly because of the extra time it gives patients and their relatives together, and allows patients to achieve important goals. Patients' limited understanding of available treatment options, paired with incorrect perceptions of treatment side effects, impacted their involvement in the treatment decision-making process. Patients and physicians perceived physicians to have the most influence in the decision-making process despite their priorities not always aligning.Conclusion
These findings illustrate the importance of having structured discussions which explicitly assess patients' goals and their understanding and expectations of treatments and also the need for patient friendly resources about the lived experience of AML and available treatment options. These measures will help to ensure that patients are fully involved in the shared decision-making process.
SUBMITTER: LeBlanc TW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9189260 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Patients engaging in shared decision making must weigh the likelihood of positive and negative outcomes and deal with uncertainty and negative emotions in the situations where desirable options might not be available. The use of "nudges," or communication techniques that influence patients' choices in a predictable direction, may assist patients in making complex decisions. However, nudging patients may be perceived as inappropriate influence on patients' choices. We sought to determine whether key stakeholders, physicians, and laypersons without clinical training consider the use of nudges to be ethical and appropriate in medical decision making. Eighty-nine resident-physicians and 336 Mechanical-Turk workers (i.e., non-clinicians) evaluated two hypothetical preference-sensitive situations, in which a patient with advanced cancer chooses between chemotherapy and hospice care. We varied the following: (1) whether or not the patient's decision was influenced by a mistaken judgment (i.e., decision-making bias) and (2) whether or not the physician used a nudge. Each participant reported the extent to which the communication was ethical, appropriate, and desirable. Both physicians and non-clinicians considered using nudges more positively than not using them, regardless of an initial decision-making bias in patients' considerations. Decomposing this effect, we found that physicians viewed the nudge that endorsed hospice care more favorably than the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy, while non-clinicians viewed the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy more favorably than the nudge that endorsed hospice care. We discuss implications and propose exploring further physicians' and patients' differences in the perception of nudges; the differences may suggest limitations for using nudges in medical decisions.
| S-EPMC6145510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFollowing passage of the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990, health care institutions that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding are required to inform patients of their right to make their health care preferences known through execution of a living will and/or to appoint a surrogate-decision maker. We evaluated the impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physicians' decisions to honor or forgo previously established advance directives (ADs). In addition, physician views regarding legal risk, patients' ability to comprehend complexities involved with their care, and impact of medical costs related to end-of-life care decisions were explored.MethodsAttendees of two Mayo Clinic continuing medical education courses were surveyed. Three scenarios based in part on previously court-litigated matters assessed impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physician compliance with patient-articulated wishes regarding resuscitation. General questions measured respondents' perception of legal risk, concerns over patient knowledge of idiosyncrasies involved with their care, and impact medical costs may have on compliance with patient preferences. Responses indicating strength of agreement or disagreement with statements were treated as ordinal data and analyzed using the Cochran Armitage trend test.ResultsThree hundred eighty-eight of 951 surveys were completed (41% response rate). Eighty percent reported they were likely to honor a patient's AD despite its 5 year age. Fewer than half (41%) would honor the AD of a patient in ventricular fibrillation who had expressed a desire to "pass away in peace." Few (17%) would forgo an AD following a family's request for continued resuscitative treatment. A majority (52%) considered risk of liability to be lower when maintaining someone alive against their wishes than mistakenly failing to provide resuscitative efforts. A large percentage (74%) disagreed that patients could not appreciate complexities surrounding their care while 69% agreed that costs should never impact a physician's decision as to whether to comply with a patient's AD.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the impact, albeit small, external factors have on physician AD compliance. Most respondents based their decision on the clinical situation at hand and interpretation of the patient's initial wishes and preferences expressed by the AD.
| S-EPMC3528447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 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.PurposeWe 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 settingThree tertiary academic medical centers.Patient sampleWe recruited patients presenting for treatment of spinal metastatic disease at one of three tertiary centers in Boston, MA.Outcome measuresWe conducted semistructured interviews using a guide that probed participants' experiences with making treatment decisions.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC7246131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Careful patient-clinician shared decision-making about dialysis initiation has been promoted, but few studies have addressed patient perspectives on the extent of information provided and how decisions to start dialysis are made.Ninety-nine maintenance dialysis patients recruited from 15 outpatient dialysis centers in North Carolina completed semistructured interviews on information provision and communication about the initiation of dialysis. These data were examined with content analysis. In addition, informed decision-making (IDM) scores were created by summing patient responses (yes/no) to 10 questions about the decision-making.The mean IDM score was 4.4 (of 10; SD = 2.0); 67% scored 5 or lower. Age at the time of decision-making (r = -0.27, P = 0.006), years of education (r = 0.24, P = 0.02) and presence of a warning about progressing to end-stage kidney disease (t = 2.9, P = 0.005) were significantly associated with IDM scores. Nearly 70% said that the risks and burdens of dialysis were not mentioned at all, and only one patient recalled that the doctor offered the option of not starting dialysis. While a majority (67%) said that they felt they had no choice about starting dialysis (because the alternative would be death) or about dialysis modality, only 21.2% said that they had felt rushed to make a decision. About one-third of the patients perceived that the decision to start dialysis and modality was already made by the doctor.A majority of patients felt unprepared and ill-informed about the initiation of dialysis. Improving the extent of IDM about dialysis may optimize patient preparation prior to starting treatment and their perceptions about the decision-making process.
| S-EPMC3811056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart disease face challenging treatment decisions. We sought to explore the perceptions of patients and physicians about shared decision-making for coronary procedures for people with CKD, as well as opinions about strategies and tools to improve these decisions.MethodsWe partnered with 4 patients with CKD and 1 caregiver to design and conduct a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews and content analysis. Patient participants with CKD and either acute coronary syndrome or cardiac catheterization in the preceding year were recruited from a provincial cardiac registry, cardiology wards and clinics in Calgary between March and September 2018. Cardiologists from the region also participated in the study. Data analysis emphasized identifying, organizing and describing themes found within the data.ResultsTwenty patients with CKD and 10 cardiologists identified several complexities related to bidirectional information exchange needed for shared decision-making. Themes identified by both patients and physicians included challenges synthesizing best evidence, variable patient knowledge seeking, timeliness in the acute care setting and influence of roles on decision-making. Themes identified by physicians related to processes and tools to help support shared decision-making in this setting included personalization to reflect the variability of risks and heterogeneity of patient preferences as well as allowing for physicians to share their clinical judgment.InterpretationThere are complexities related to bidirectional information exchange between patients with CKD and their physicians for shared decision-making about coronary procedures. Processes and tools to facilitate shared decision-making in this setting require personalization and need to be time sensitive.
| S-EPMC7867031 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdolescents and young adults (AYAs) with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) are at high risk for underdiagnosis and inadequate treatment. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence the medical decision making of AYAs with FH and their families.ObjectiveThis study explores how family medical history, family narratives of medical experiences, and AYA medical experiences together function as "experiential evidence" and influence screening and treatment decisions.MethodsTwenty-four parents and AYAs affected by FH from a pediatric preventive cardiology practice responded to a survey and a semistructured qualitative interview. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. Study design, instruments, and interpretation of results were informed by a 20-member stakeholder panel.ResultsAYAs and parents reported extensive personal and family experiences with cholesterol and cardiovascular conditions and treatments, sometimes distinct from FH, which were used as evidence to inform their own perceptions of FH risk and treatment. This experiential evidence impacted perceptions of: (1) hereditary risk for FH diagnoses, (2) risk for future cardiovascular disease, (3) risks associated with treatments, and (4) capacity to comply with recommended treatments. Although experiences of family members initially informed screening and treatment decisions, the subsequent personal experiences of AYAs led to new experiential evidence that informed future decisions.ConclusionsFamily cardiovascular history related to and distinct from FH influenced screening and treatment decisions of AYAs and parents affected by FH. Additional clinical assessment of personal and family medical experiences may enhance understanding of the decision-making processes among AYAs and ultimately improve adherence to screening and treatment recommendations.
| S-EPMC6594829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Patient-physician shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly seen as having a positive effect on management of chronic diseases. However, little is known of the factors that encourage SDM or how effective it may be at improving health outcomes or how cost-effective it is. AIM:To investigate the uses and applications of patient physician-SDM in the management of haemophilia and the influence of healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom. METHODS:This was a qualitative study based on interviews with treatment experts in the United States and United Kingdom. A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the data from the transcribed interviews and themes that emerged as related to the decision influencers. Twelve physicians from each country were interviewed by the author. RESULTS:Treatment guidelines were viewed as having only limited applicability because of the lack of universal best options in haemophilia. The US physicians in the sample appeared to be more influenced by patient preferences than physicians in the UK, who instead tended to follow policies and standards of care more closely. Physicians in both countries commented that many of their patents had become highly knowledgeable of their bleeding disorder. US physicians were sometimes limited by insurance company policies but also reported that they were often successful in appealing insurance decisions. CONCLUSION:The research suggests that there are different influences on decision-making between healthcare systems; patients and overarching healthcare systems play a major role in how physicians treat haemophilia.
| S-EPMC6850192 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9090401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMost knowledge translation models pay relatively little attention to patient-held knowledge and are largely based on the premise that researchers and clinicians hold all valuable knowledge, and patients are passive recipients of such knowledge. Counter to this clinician- and researcher-centred lens is a growing interest and awareness of patients as experts in their health. While naturopathic medicine is described and experienced as a patient-centred system of traditional medicine, the position of patient-held knowledge is unclear particularly when considered alongside their use of other more objective forms of knowledge such as research evidence.MethodsThis international online cross-sectional survey aimed to explore naturopathic practitioners' perceptions of the value and contribution of patient-shared knowledge and information within the context of naturopathic clinical consultations.ResultsThe survey was completed by 453 naturopathic practitioners (response rate: 74.3%). Approximately two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported using information shared by the patient. Most rated 'information provided by the patient' as either 'extremely important' (60.7%) or 'very important' (31.4%) to patients. Highest levels of trust were reported for information provided by the patient ('completely': 9.9%; 'a lot': 53.6%). Most practitioners indicated they trusted knowledge and information derived from the patient's personal health history 'completely' (n = 79; 21.8%) or 'a lot' (n = 226; 62.4%) from the patient's perspective of living with a health condition ('completely' [n = 63, 17.4%]; 'a lot' [n = 224, 61.9%]). Patients were the highest ranked stakeholder group (mean: 1.5) perceived to influence NP use of patient experience of living with a health condition to inform clinical decision-making.ConclusionResearchers and policy makers are increasingly focused on the value of the 'expert patient' in clinical decision-making, yet health professionals' report challenges and, in some cases, resistance to meaningfully engaging with patient-shared knowledge in practice. However, our study has found patient-shared knowledge - inclusive of patient experience of their health condition - is among the knowledge used and trusted by naturopathic practitioners to inform their clinical decision-making. This study both offers insights into the knowledge translation behaviours of an under-researched health profession and provides a novel contribution to the wider aim of adopting patient-shared knowledge into clinical care more generally.
| S-EPMC10354883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGoal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians' treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians' treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy.MethodsPhysicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks' treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians' treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks' treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians' treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients' pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change).ResultsQuestionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into physicians' perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians' treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01154036.
| S-EPMC4457981 | biostudies-literature