Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Kunneman, Marleen
• Engelhardt, Ellen G
• Ten Hove, F L Laura
• Marijnen, Corrie A M
• Portielje, Johanneke E A
• Smets, Ellen M A
• de Haes, Hanneke J C J M Hanneke
• Stiggelbout, Anne M
• Pieterse, Arwen H

Titel

Deciding about (neo-)adjuvant rectal and breast cancer treatment: Missed opportunities for shared decision making

Ist Teil von

• Acta oncologica, 2016-02, Vol.55 (2), p.134-139

Ort / Verlag

England

Erscheinungsjahr

2016

Quelle

Taylor & Francis Journals Auto-Holdings Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The first step in shared decision making (SDM) is creating choice awareness. This is particularly relevant in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions, e.g. those addressing (neo-)adjuvant therapy. Awareness can be achieved by explicitly stating, as the 'reason for encounter', that a treatment decision needs to be made. It is unknown whether oncologists express such reason for encounter. This study aims to establish: 1) if 'making a treatment decision' is stated as a reason for the encounter and if not, what other reason for encounter is provided; and 2) whether mentioning that a treatment decision needs to be made is associated with enhanced patient involvement in decision making. Consecutive first consultations with: 1) radiation oncologists and rectal cancer patients; or 2) medical oncologists and breast cancer patients, facing a preference-sensitive treatment decision, were audiotaped. The tapes were transcribed and coded using an instrument developed for the study. Oncologists' involvement of patients in decision making was coded using the OPTION-scale. Oncologists (N = 33) gave a reason for encounter in 70/100 consultations, usually (N = 52/70, 74%) at the start of the consultation. The reason for encounter stated was 'making a treatment decision' in 3/100 consultations, and 'explaining treatment details' in 44/100 consultations. The option of foregoing adjuvant treatment was not explicitly presented in any consultation. Oncologist' involvement of patients in decision making was below baseline (Md OPTION-score = 10). Given the small number of consultations in which the need to make a treatment decision was stated, we could not investigate the impact thereof on patient involvement. This study suggests that oncologists rarely express that a treatment decision needs to be made in consultations concerning preference-sensitive treatment decisions. Therefore, patients might not realize that foregoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment is a viable choice. Oncologists miss a crucial opportunity to facilitate SDM.