What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists

Author:

Rocque Gabrielle B.123,Rasool Aysha4,Williams Beverly R.3,Wallace Audrey S.5,Niranjan Soumya J.1,Halilova Karina I.2,Turkman Yasemin E.6,Ingram Stacey A.2,Williams Courtney P.2,Forero-Torres Andres12,Smith Tom7,Bhatia Smita8,Knight Sara J.9

Affiliation:

1. O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

3. Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

4. School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

6. School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

7. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

8. Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

9. Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Abstract

Abstract Background Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC. Materials and Methods Patients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted. Results Participants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice. Conclusion Although both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients’ considerations were broader than oncologists’, incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC. Implications for Practice Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3