Cancer patients' preferences for written prognostic information provided outside the clinical context.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Davey HM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2394356 | biostudies-other | 2003 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAvoiding food allergens when eating outside the home presents particular difficulties for food allergic (FA) and intolerant (FI) consumers and a lack of allergen information in restaurants and takeaways causes unnecessary restrictions. Across Europe, legislation effective from December 2014, aims to improve allergen information by requiring providers of non-prepacked foods to supply information related to allergen content within their foods.MethodsUsing in-depth interviews with 60 FA/FI adults and 15 parents/carers of FA/FI children, we aimed to identify FA/FI consumers' preferences for written and/or verbal allergen information when eating out or ordering takeaway food.ResultsA complex and dynamic set of preferences and practices for written and verbal allergen information was identified. Overwhelmingly, written information was favoured in the first instance, but credible personal/verbal communication was highly valued and essential to a good eating out experience. Adequate written information facilitated implicit trust in subsequent verbal information. Where written information was limited, FA/FIs depended on social cues to assess the reliability of verbal information resources, and defaulted to tried and tested allergen avoidance strategies when these were deemed unreliable.ConclusionUnderstanding the subtle negotiations and difficulties encountered by FA/FIs when eating out can serve as a guide for legislators and food providers; by encouraging provision of clear written and verbal allergen information, and training of proactive, allergen-aware staff. This, in tandem with legal requirements for allergen information provision, paves the way for FA/FIs to feel more confident in eating out choices; and to experience improved eating out experiences.
| S-EPMC4880205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Head and Neck cancer (HNC) is characterized by significant mortality and morbidity. Treatment is often invasive and interferes with vital functions, resulting in a delicate balance between survival benefit and deterioration in quality of life (QoL). Therefore, including prognostic information during patient counseling can be of great importance. The first aim of this study was to explore HNC patients' preferences for receiving prognostic information: both qualitative (general terms like "curable cancer"), and quantitative information (numbers, percentages). The second aim of this study was to explore patients' views on "OncologIQ", a prognostic model developed to estimate overall survival in newly diagnosed HNC patients. METHODS:We conducted a single center qualitative study by organizing five focus groups with HNC patients (n?=?21) and their caregivers (n?=?19), categorized in: 1) small laryngeal carcinomas treated with radiotherapy or laser, 2) extensive oral cavity procedures, 3) total laryngectomy, 4) chemoradiation, 5) other treatments. The patients' perspective was the main focus. The interview guide consisted of two main topics: life-expectancy and the prognostic model OncologIQ. All focus groups were recorded, transcribed and coded. Themes were derived using content analysis. RESULTS:While all patients considered it somewhat to very important to receive information about their life-expectancy, only some of them wanted to receive quantitative information. Disclosing qualitative prognostic information like "the cancer is curable" would give enough reassurance for most patients. Overall, patients thought life-expectancy should not be discussed shortly after cancer diagnosis disclosure, as a certain time is needed to process the first shock. They had a stronger preference for receiving prognostic information in case of a poor prognosis. Prognostic information should also include information on the expected QoL. The pie chart was the most preferred chart for discussing survival rates. CONCLUSIONS:The participants found it important to receive information on their life-expectancy. While most patients were enough reassured by qualitative prognostic information, some wanted to receive quantitative information like OncologIQs' estimates. A tailor-made approach is necessary to provide customized prognostic information. A clinical practice guideline was developed to support professionals in sharing prognostic information, aiming to improve shared decision making and patient-centered care.
| S-EPMC7203788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextPrognostic information is considered important for advanced cancer patients and primary informal caregivers to prepare for the end of life. Little is known about discordance in patients' and caregivers' prognostic information preferences and prognostic perceptions, while such discordance complicates adaptive dyadic coping, clinical interactions and care plans.ObjectivesTo investigate the extent of patient-caregiver discordance in prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and the factors associated with discordant prognostic perceptions.MethodsWe conducted secondary analyses of a cross-sectional study (PROSPECT, 2019-2021). Advanced cancer patients (median overall survival ≤12 months) from seven Dutch hospitals and caregivers completed structured surveys (n = 412 dyads).ResultsSeven percent of patient-caregiver dyads had discordant information preferences regarding the likelihood of cure; 24%-25% had discordant information preferences regarding mortality risk (5/2/1 year). Seventeen percent of dyads had discordant perceptions of the likelihood of cure; 12%-25% had discordant perceptions of mortality risk (5/2/1 year). Dyads with discordant prognostic information preferences (P < 0.05) and dyads in which patients reported better physical functioning (P < 0.01) were significantly more likely to perceive the one-year mortality risk discordantly.ConclusionPhysicians should be sensitive to discordant prognostic information preferences and prognostic perceptions among patient-caregiver dyads in advanced cancer care.
| S-EPMC10285690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsPragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US.MethodsThe study took the form of a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives.ResultsA total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability-based online panel responded to the web-based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7-37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7-14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.ConclusionsThe results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low-risk pRCTs.
| S-EPMC5582372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextAccurate prognostic understanding is associated with increased advance care planning, symptom control, and patient autonomy in oncology. The impact of prognostic understanding on patients' health information preferences (HIPs) and prognostic information preferences is unknown and has important implications for health care communication.ObjectivesThe present study characterized the HIPs of patients with advanced cancer; examined differences in HIPs between patients with varying curability beliefs; and identified differences in the characteristics and psychological well-being of patients with varying curability beliefs.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used a secondary data analysis of baseline data (prerandomization) for patients enrolled in a large randomized controlled psychotherapy trial. 206 participants were recruited from outpatient clinics at a single facility. Inclusion criteria included: 18 years and older; English speaking, Stage IV solid tumor cancer, and Distress Thermometer score of ≥4.ResultsMost participants preferred as many details as possible about their diagnosis and treatment (69.4%; n = 143), and the likely outcome of their disease (72.3%; n = 149). Most participants accurately described their cancer as unlikely curable or incurable (62.6%; n = 129). There were no significant differences in HIPs based on level of prognostic understanding. Poorer prognostic understanding was associated with religiosity and better quality of life and existential well-being.ConclusionIn the present study, prognostic understanding (i.e., curability beliefs) was not associated with HIPs. Therefore, oncology clinicians must individually and interatively evaluate patients' interest and preferences for receiving information. Future research should further clarify preferences for the framing and content of prognostic information from providers and improve the measurement of prognostic understanding to facilitate patient-centered end-of-life care.
| S-EPMC7770014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmense volumes of personal health information (PHI) are required to realize the anticipated benefits of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine. To maintain public trust in medical research, consent policies must evolve to reflect contemporary patient preferences.MethodsPatients were invited to complete a 27-item survey focusing on: (a) broad versus specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out approaches; (c) comfort level sharing with different recipients; (d) attitudes towards commercialization; and (e) options to track PHI use and study results.Results222 participants were included in the analysis; 83% were comfortable sharing PHI with researchers at their own hospital, although younger patients (≤ 49 years) were more uncomfortable than older patients (50 + years; 13% versus 2% uncomfortable, p < 0.05). While 56% of patients preferred broad consent, 38% preferred specific consent; 6% preferred not sharing at all. The majority of patients (63%) preferred to be asked for permission before entry into a contact pool. Again, this trend was more pronounced for younger patients (≤ 49 years: 76%). Approximately half of patients were uncomfortable sharing PHI with commercial enterprises (51% uncomfortable, 27% comfortable, 22% neutral). Most patients preferred to track PHI usage (61%), with the highest proportion once again reported by the youngest patients (≤ 49 years: 71%). A majority of patients also wished to be notified regarding study results (70%).ConclusionsWhile most patients were willing to share their PHI with researchers within their own institution, many preferred a transparent and reciprocal consent process. These data also suggest a generational shift, wherein younger patients preferred more specific consent options. Modernizing consent policies to reflect increased autonomy is crucial in fostering sustained public engagement with medical research.
| S-EPMC7992944 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChatGPT-4 is the latest release of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot able to answer freely formulated and complex questions. In the near future, ChatGPT could become the new standard for health care professionals and patients to access medical information. However, little is known about the quality of medical information provided by the AI.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the reliability of medical information provided by ChatGPT.MethodsMedical information provided by ChatGPT-4 on the 5 hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) conditions with the highest global disease burden was measured with the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. The EQIP tool is used to measure the quality of internet-available information and consists of 36 items that are divided into 3 subsections. In addition, 5 guideline recommendations per analyzed condition were rephrased as questions and input to ChatGPT, and agreement between the guidelines and the AI answer was measured by 2 authors independently. All queries were repeated 3 times to measure the internal consistency of ChatGPT.ResultsFive conditions were identified (gallstone disease, pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, pancreatic cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma). The median EQIP score across all conditions was 16 (IQR 14.5-18) for the total of 36 items. Divided by subsection, median scores for content, identification, and structure data were 10 (IQR 9.5-12.5), 1 (IQR 1-1), and 4 (IQR 4-5), respectively. Agreement between guideline recommendations and answers provided by ChatGPT was 60% (15/25). Interrater agreement as measured by the Fleiss κ was 0.78 (P<.001), indicating substantial agreement. Internal consistency of the answers provided by ChatGPT was 100%.ConclusionsChatGPT provides medical information of comparable quality to available static internet information. Although currently of limited quality, large language models could become the future standard for patients and health care professionals to gather medical information.
| S-EPMC10365578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNocebo effects ('negative placebo' effects) experienced by clinical trial participants can arise from an underlying condition or through communication about side effects in the participant information leaflets (or elsewhere). Misattributing nocebo effects to the medicinal intervention can lead to participants experiencing harmful nocebo effects and may result in distortion of adverse effect reporting. However, little is known about how information on potential side effects is provided to trial participants. There is increasing concern that the way in which potential side effects in clinical trials are described to patients in participant information leaflets (PIL) can in itself cause harm by either increased anxiety, poor adherence or inducing the side effect itself. In this study, we aimed to explore these concerns and identify the way in which potential side effects from investigational medicinal products used in trials are presented in written information to potential participants.MethodsTrials were identified from the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) clinical trial registry (a primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)). Eligible studies were placebo-controlled clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (IMP) in adults conducted in the UK. We assessed readability using the Flesch Reading Ease scale, Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade. Data extracted from the PILs were divided into 8 predefined qualitative themes for analysis in NVivo11.ResultsMost of the patient information leaflets were ranked as 'fairly difficult to read' or 'difficult to read' according to the Flesch Reading Ease scale. All studies presented information about adverse events, whereas only a third presented information about intervention benefits. Where intervention or study benefits were presented, they were usually after adverse events (21/33, 64%).DiscussionParticipant information leaflets scored poorly on ease of readability and had more content relating to adverse effects than any potential beneficial effects. The way in which adverse events were presented was heterogeneous in terms of their likelihood and severity and the amount and level of detail provided. By comparison, potential benefits from the intervention and/or study were described less often, by shorter text, and only after information about harms.
| S-EPMC7368797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The number of cases of aggressive prostate cancer is increasing. Differentiating between aggressive and indolent cases has resulted in increased difficulty for the physician and patient to decide on the best treatment option. Due to this challenge, efforts are underway to profile genetic risk for prostate cancer aggressiveness, which may help physicians and patients at risk for developing aggressive prostate cancer to select an appropriate treatment option. This study explores patients' interest in receiving genetic results, preference for how genetic risk information should be communicated, and willingness to share results with adult male first-degree relatives (FDRs). A nine-item survey was adapted to assess their beliefs and attitudes about genetic testing for prostate cancer aggressiveness. In addition, participants (n = 50) responded to hypothetical scenarios and questions associated with perceived importance of risk disclosure, preferences for receiving genetic risk information, and sharing of results with FDRs. As the hypothetical risk estimate for aggressive prostate cancer increased, patients' willingness to receive genetic risk information increased. This study found that most patients preferred receiving genetic risk education in the form of a DVD (76%), one-page informational sheet (75%), or educational booklet (70%). Almost all patients (98%) reported that they would be willing to share their test results with FDRs. The results of this study highlight prostate cancer patients' desire to receive and share genetic risk information. Future research should focus on assessing the long-term benefits of receiving genetic information for prostate cancer patients and implications of sharing this information with FDRs.
| S-EPMC7243408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHypoxaemia is a frequent complication of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To prevent its consequences, supplemental oxygen therapy is recommended by international respiratory societies. However, despite clear recommendations, some patients receive long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), while they do not meet prescription criteria. While evidence suggests that acute oxygen supply at high oxygenation targets increases COPD mortality, its chronic effects on COPD mortality remain unclear. Thus, the study will aim to evaluate through a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA), the association of LTOT prescription outside the guidelines on survival over time in COPD.MethodsSystematic review and IPD-MA will be conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses IPD guidelines. Electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey and BioRxiv/MedRxix) will be scanned to identify relevant studies (cohort of stable COPD with arterial oxygen tension data available, with indication of LTOT filled out at the moment of the study and with a survival follow-up). The anticipated search dates are January-February 2022. The main outcome will be the association between LTOT and time to all-cause mortality according to hypoxaemia severity, after controlling for potential covariates and all available clinical characteristics. Quantitative data at the level of the individual patient will be used in a one-step approach to develop and validate a prognostic model with a Cox regression analysis. The one-step IPD-MA will be conducted to study the association and the moderators of association between supplemental oxygen therapy and mortality. Multilevel survival analyses using Cox-mixed effects models will be performed.Ethics and disseminationAs a protocol for a systematic review, a formal ethics committee review is not required. Only studies with institutional approval from an ethics committee and anonymised IPD will be included. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations in conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020209823.
| S-EPMC8753397 | biostudies-literature