Dataset Information

Equal cancer treatment regardless of education level and family support? A qualitative study of oncologists' decision-making.

ABSTRACT: Treatment gradients by socioeconomic status have been observed within cancer care in several countries. The objective of this study was to explore whether patients' educational level and social network influence oncologists' clinical decision-making.Semi-structured interviews on factors considered when deciding on treatment for cancer patients. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.Oncologists in Swedish university- and non-university hospitals were interviewed in their respective places of work.Twenty Swedish clinical oncologists selected through maximum-variation sampling.Elements which influence oncologists' decision-making process were explored with focus on educational level and patients' social support systems.Oncologists consciously used less combination chemotherapy for patients living alone, fearing treatment toxicity. Highly educated patients were considered as well-read, demanding and sometimes difficult to reason with. Patients with higher education, those very keen to have treatment and persuasive relatives were considered as challenges for the oncologist. Having large groups of relatives in a room made doctors feel outnumbered. A desire to please patients and relatives was posed as the main reason for giving in to patients' demands, even when this resulted in treatment with limited efficacy.Oncologists tailor treatment for patients living alone to avoid harmful side-effects. Many find patients' demands difficult to handle and this may result in strong socioeconomic groups being over-treated.

SUBMITTER: Cavalli-Bjorkman N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3432847 | biostudies-other | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Equal cancer treatment regardless of education level and family support? A qualitative study of oncologists' decision-making.

Cavalli-Björkman Nina N Glimelius Bengt B Strang Peter P

BMJ open 20120824 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Treatment gradients by socioeconomic status have been observed within cancer care in several countries. The objective of this study was to explore whether patients' educational level and social network influence oncologists' clinical decision-making.<h4>Design</h4>Semi-structured interviews on factors considered when deciding on treatment for cancer patients. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Oncologists in Swe ...[more]

PMID: 22923630

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a critical need to improve support for families making difficult shared decisions about patient care with clinicians in the neuroscience ICU (neuro-ICU). The aim of this study is to identify patient- and family-related factors associated with dissatisfaction with shared decision-making support among families of neuro-critically ill patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational cohort study using survey data that had been collected from a consecutive sample of family members of patients in the neuro-ICU (one family member per patient) at two US academic centers. Satisfaction with shared decision-making support on ICU discharge had been measured among family members using one specific Likert scale item on the Family Satisfaction in the ICU 24 survey, a validated survey instrument for families of patients in the ICU. We dichotomized top-box responses for this particular item as an outcome variable and identified available patient- and family-related covariates associated with dissatisfaction (i.e., less than complete satisfaction) via univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsAmong 355 surveys, 180 (49.5%) of the surveys indicated dissatisfaction with support during decision-making. In a multivariate model, no preexisting characteristics of families or patients ascertainable on ICU admission were predictive of dissatisfaction. However, among family factors determined during the ICU course, experiencing three or fewer formal family meetings (odds ratio 1.93 [confidence interval 1.13-3.31]; p = 0.01) was significantly predictive of dissatisfaction with decisional support in this cohort with an average patient length of stay of 8.6 days (SD 8.4). There was also a trend toward a family's decision to keep a patient as full code, without treatment limitations, being predictive of dissatisfaction (odds ratio 1.80 [confidence interval 0.93-3.51]; p = 0.08).ConclusionsFamily dissatisfaction with neuro-ICU shared decision-making support is not necessarily predicted by any preexisting family or patient variables but appears to correlate with participating in fewer formal family meetings during ICU admission. Future studies to improve family satisfaction with neurocritical care decision-making support should have broad inclusion criteria for participants and should consider promoting frequency of family meetings as a core strategy.

Project description:PurposeAlthough comorbidities, frailty, and functional impairment are common in older adults (OA) with cancer, little is known about how these factors are considered during the treatment decision-making process by OAs, their families, and health care providers. Our aim was to better understand the treatment decision process from all these perspectives.MethodsA mixed methods multi-perspective longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews and surveys with 29 OAs aged ?70 years with advanced prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, 24 of their family members,13 oncologists, and 15 family physicians was conducted. The sample was stratified on age (70-79 and 80+). All interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsThere was no difference in the treatment decision-making experience based on age. Most OAs felt that they should have the final say in the treatment decision, but strongly valued their oncologists' opinion. "Trust in my oncologist" and "chemotherapy as the last resort to prolong life" were the most important reasons to accept treatment. Families indicated a need to improve communication between them, the patient and the specialist, particularly around goals of treatment. Comorbidity and potential side-effects did not play a major role in the treatment decision-making for patients, families, or oncologists. Family physicians reported no involvement in decisions but desired to be more involved.ConclusionThis first study using multiple perspectives showed neither frailty nor comorbidity played a role in the treatment decision-making process. Efforts to improve communication were identified as an opportunity that may enhance quality of care. In a mixed methods study multiple perspective study with older adults with cancer, their family members, their oncologist and their family physician we explored the treatment decision making process and found that most older adults were satisfied with their decision. Comorbidity, functional status and frailty did not impact the older adult's or their family members' decision.

Project description:Background: This study's objectives were to describe community oncologists' beliefs about and confidence with geriatric care and to determine whether geriatric-relevant information influences cancer treatment decisions. Methods: Community oncologists were recruited to participate in 2 multisite geriatric oncology trials. Participants shared their beliefs about and confidence in caring for older adults. They were also asked to make a first-line chemotherapy recommendation (combination vs single-agent vs no chemotherapy) for a hypothetical vignette of an older patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Each oncologist received one randomly chosen vignette that varied on 3 variables: age (72/84 years), impaired function (yes/no), and cognitive impairment (yes/no). Other patient characteristics were held constant. Logistic regression models were used to identify associations between oncologist/vignette-patient characteristics and treatment decisions. Results: Oncologist response rate was 61% (n=305/498). Most oncologists agreed that "the care of older adults with cancer needs to be improved" (89%) and that "geriatrics training is essential" (72%). However, <25% were "very confident" in recognizing dementia or conducting a fall risk or functional assessment, and only 23% reported using the geriatric assessment in clinic. Each randomly varied patient characteristic was independently associated with the decision to treat: younger age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.01; 95% CI, 2.73-9.20), normal cognition (aOR, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.01-9.76), and being functionally intact (aOR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.12-7.00). Accounting for all vignettes across all scenarios, 161 oncologists (52%) said they would offer chemotherapy. All variables were independently associated with prescribing single-agent over combination chemotherapy (older age: aOR, 3.22; 95% CI 1.43-7.25, impaired cognition: aOR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.36-7.20, impaired function: aOR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.12-5.72). Oncologists' characteristics were not associated with decisions about providing chemotherapy. Conclusion: Geriatric-relevant information, when available, strongly influences community oncologists' treatment decisions.

Project description:BackgroundWork participation is an important determinant of public health; being unemployed leads to a decrease in an individual's health. In the Netherlands, people with a work disability can apply for disability benefits, in which people also receive support to return to work (RTW). A method, currently used in the medical sector, that can include both the perspective of the reintegration professional and of the individual in the process of RTW, is shared decision making (SDM). In this article we explore to what extent reintegration professionals currently use SDM, and to what extent they prefer to use SDM in their ideal interaction with clients.MethodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with fourteen reintegration professionals from four different municipalities. The transcripts were coded according to content analysis, applying open and axial coding.ResultsReintegration professionals emphasised the importance of having a good relationship with clients, of building trust and collaborating as a team. They did not inform their clients that they could be part of the decision-making process, or discussed a shared goal. Although professionals did emphasise the importance of aligning their approach with the preferences of the client and though they tried to offer some choice options, they did not mention available options, discussed the pros and cons of these options or evaluated decisions with their clients. Furthermore, they did not mention any of these aspects in their ideal interaction with clients.ConclusionsSDM has a potential value, because all professionals underline the importance of having an alliance with clients, collaborating as a team, and striving to align their approach with the preferences of the client. However, professionals currently perform a limited set of SDM steps. Additional knowledge and skills are needed for both reintegration professionals and municipalities so that professionals can consider and reflect on the value of using SDM, or SDM steps, in supporting RTW. Providing clients with knowledge and skills seems necessary to facilitate both self-management and SDM.

Dataset Information

Equal cancer treatment regardless of education level and family support? A qualitative study of oncologists' decision-making.

Publications

Equal cancer treatment regardless of education level and family support? A qualitative study of oncologists' decision-making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets