Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 8/2017

01-08-2017 | Original Article – Clinical Oncology

Cancer patients’ preferences for therapy decisions can be grouped into categories and separated by demographic factors

Authors: Jana Arnholdt, Jörg Haier

Published in: Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Shared decision-making is based on comparable understanding of decision criteria on both sides that requires knowledge about preferences, reception/prioritization of benefits and covariates influencing these criteria. We addressed identification of cancer patients’ preferences for treatment decisions and covariates for preference patterns in certain patient cohorts.

Design

Using preference surveys ordinal ranking of decisional preferences in life (PL) and during therapy (PT) were obtained and aggregated by factorial analysis. Demographic and clinical data enabled clustering of patient groups including non-malignant control group with distinct preference patterns. Covariates for these patterns were determined by multivariate ANOVA.

Results

1777 cancer and 367 non-oncological patients (≥18 years) were evaluable (response 56.0%). Patient-reported PT was grouped into distinctive categories: immediate treatment effectivity, long-term effects and survival, empathy, easy treatment and employability/healing. Gender, parenthood, family status, age and educational level mainly determine importance of PL (52.1% variance) and PT (55.1% variance) enabling discrimination of specific preference patterns in patients: older males, non-single, younger males, non-single female with children and young, single patients without children that mainly significantly differed from non-cancer patients (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Relevance of decisional PL/PT appears to be cancer-specific and distinct between cancer patient groups. If patients recognize direct social responsibility, immediate treatment effects gain importance accompanied by reduced impact of employability, rehabilitation and financial security. For young and independent patients empathy has similar impact as treatment effects. Consequently, clinical research should consider age-specific endpoints and distinct decisional preferences to match patients’ perspective by specific evidence.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
go back to reference Amir Z, Wilson K, Hennings J, Young A (2012) The meaning of cancer: implications for family finances and consequent impact on lifestyle, activities, roles and relationships. Psycho Oncol 21:1167–1174CrossRef Amir Z, Wilson K, Hennings J, Young A (2012) The meaning of cancer: implications for family finances and consequent impact on lifestyle, activities, roles and relationships. Psycho Oncol 21:1167–1174CrossRef
go back to reference Bang Hyun K, Wallington SF, Makambi KH, Adams-Campbell LL (2015) Social networks and physical activity behaviors among cancer survivors: data from the 2005 health information national trends survey. J Health Commun 20:656–662CrossRef Bang Hyun K, Wallington SF, Makambi KH, Adams-Campbell LL (2015) Social networks and physical activity behaviors among cancer survivors: data from the 2005 health information national trends survey. J Health Commun 20:656–662CrossRef
go back to reference Barber FD (2012) Social support and physical activity engagement by cancer survivors. Clin J Oncol Nurs 16:E84CrossRefPubMed Barber FD (2012) Social support and physical activity engagement by cancer survivors. Clin J Oncol Nurs 16:E84CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Brown NM, Lui C-W, Robinson PC, Boyle FM (2015) Supportive care needs and preferences of lung cancer patients: a semi-structured qualitative interview study. Support Care Cancer 23:1533–1539CrossRefPubMed Brown NM, Lui C-W, Robinson PC, Boyle FM (2015) Supportive care needs and preferences of lung cancer patients: a semi-structured qualitative interview study. Support Care Cancer 23:1533–1539CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1999) Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 49:651–661CrossRefPubMed Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1999) Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 49:651–661CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G (2012) Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 86:9–18CrossRefPubMed Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G (2012) Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 86:9–18CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Coulter A (1997) Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res 2:112–121 Coulter A (1997) Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res 2:112–121
go back to reference Eom CS et al. (2013) Impact of perceived social support on the mental health and health-related quality of life in cancer patients: results from a nationwide, multicenter survey in South Korea. Psycho Oncol 22:1283–1290CrossRef Eom CS et al. (2013) Impact of perceived social support on the mental health and health-related quality of life in cancer patients: results from a nationwide, multicenter survey in South Korea. Psycho Oncol 22:1283–1290CrossRef
go back to reference Epstein RM, Gramling RE (2013) What is shared in shared decision making? Complex decisions when the evidence is unclear Med Care Res Rev 70:94 S–112 SCrossRef Epstein RM, Gramling RE (2013) What is shared in shared decision making? Complex decisions when the evidence is unclear Med Care Res Rev 70:94 S–112 SCrossRef
go back to reference Forsythe LP et al (2014) Social support, self-efficacy for decision-making, and follow-up care use in long-term cancer survivors. Psycho Oncol 23:788–796CrossRef Forsythe LP et al (2014) Social support, self-efficacy for decision-making, and follow-up care use in long-term cancer survivors. Psycho Oncol 23:788–796CrossRef
go back to reference Goetze H, Ernst J, Krauss O, Weissflog G, Schwarz R (2006) The impact of parenthood on quality of life of cancer patients. Zeitschrift fur Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie 53:355–372 Goetze H, Ernst J, Krauss O, Weissflog G, Schwarz R (2006) The impact of parenthood on quality of life of cancer patients. Zeitschrift fur Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie 53:355–372
go back to reference Harden J, Falahee M, Bickes J, Schafenacker A, Walker J, Mood D, Northouse L (2009) Factors associated with prostate cancer patients’ and their spouses’ satisfaction with a family-based intervention. Cancer Nurs 32:482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Harden J, Falahee M, Bickes J, Schafenacker A, Walker J, Mood D, Northouse L (2009) Factors associated with prostate cancer patients’ and their spouses’ satisfaction with a family-based intervention. Cancer Nurs 32:482CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A (2014) Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 94:291–309CrossRefPubMed Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A (2014) Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 94:291–309CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Keegan TH et al (2014) Neighborhood influences on recreational physical activity and survival after breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 25:1295–1308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Keegan TH et al (2014) Neighborhood influences on recreational physical activity and survival after breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 25:1295–1308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
go back to reference Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID (2008) Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns 73:526–535CrossRefPubMed Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID (2008) Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns 73:526–535CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Leung J, Pachana NA, McLaughlin D (2014) Social support and health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer: a longitudinal study. Psycho Oncol 23:1014–1020CrossRef Leung J, Pachana NA, McLaughlin D (2014) Social support and health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer: a longitudinal study. Psycho Oncol 23:1014–1020CrossRef
go back to reference Marshall JR, Funch DP (1983) Social environment and breast cancer. A cohort analysis of patient survival. Cancer 52:1546–1550CrossRefPubMed Marshall JR, Funch DP (1983) Social environment and breast cancer. A cohort analysis of patient survival. Cancer 52:1546–1550CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Mayring P, Fenzl T (2014) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N, Blasius J (eds) Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 543–556. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-18939-0_38 Mayring P, Fenzl T (2014) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N, Blasius J (eds) Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 543–556. doi:10.​1007/​978-3-531-18939-0_​38
go back to reference Müller-Engelmann M, Donner-Banzhoff N, Keller H, Rosinger L, Sauer C, Rehfeldt K, Krones T (2012) When decisions should be shared a study of social norms in medical decision making using a factorial survey approach. Medical Decision Making 0272989–12458159 Müller-Engelmann M, Donner-Banzhoff N, Keller H, Rosinger L, Sauer C, Rehfeldt K, Krones T (2012) When decisions should be shared a study of social norms in medical decision making using a factorial survey approach. Medical Decision Making 0272989–12458159
go back to reference Peleg-Oren N, Sherer M (2001) Cancer patients and their spouses: gender and its effect on psychological and social adjustment. J Health Psychol 6:329–338CrossRefPubMed Peleg-Oren N, Sherer M (2001) Cancer patients and their spouses: gender and its effect on psychological and social adjustment. J Health Psychol 6:329–338CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Rabin C, Simpson N, Morrow K, Pinto B (2013) Intervention format and delivery preferences among young adult cancer survivors. Int J Behav Med 20:304–310CrossRefPubMed Rabin C, Simpson N, Morrow K, Pinto B (2013) Intervention format and delivery preferences among young adult cancer survivors. Int J Behav Med 20:304–310CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Ramadas A, Qureshi AM, Dominic NA, Botross NP, Riad A, Arasoo VJT, Elangovan S (2015) Socio-demography and medical history as predictors of health-related quality of life of breast cancer survivors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16:e85CrossRef Ramadas A, Qureshi AM, Dominic NA, Botross NP, Riad A, Arasoo VJT, Elangovan S (2015) Socio-demography and medical history as predictors of health-related quality of life of breast cancer survivors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16:e85CrossRef
go back to reference Strull WM, Lo B, Charles G (1984) Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? JAMA 252:2990–2994CrossRefPubMed Strull WM, Lo B, Charles G (1984) Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? JAMA 252:2990–2994CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Thiel FC et al (2012) Shared decision-making in breast cancer: discrepancy between the treatment efficacy required by patients and by physicians. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:811–820CrossRefPubMed Thiel FC et al (2012) Shared decision-making in breast cancer: discrepancy between the treatment efficacy required by patients and by physicians. Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:811–820CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Tominaga K, Andow J, Koyama Y, Numao S, Kurokawa E, Ojima M, Nagai M (1998) Family environment, hobbies and habits as psychosocial predictors of survival for surgically treated patients with breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 28:36–41CrossRefPubMed Tominaga K, Andow J, Koyama Y, Numao S, Kurokawa E, Ojima M, Nagai M (1998) Family environment, hobbies and habits as psychosocial predictors of survival for surgically treated patients with breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 28:36–41CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Watson M, Davolls S, Mohammed K, Shepherd S (2015) The influence of life stage on supportive care and information needs in cancer patients: does older age matter? Support Care Cancer 23:2981–2988CrossRefPubMed Watson M, Davolls S, Mohammed K, Shepherd S (2015) The influence of life stage on supportive care and information needs in cancer patients: does older age matter? Support Care Cancer 23:2981–2988CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Whitney SN, Holmes-Rovner M, Brody H, Schneider C, McCullough LB, Volk RJ, McGuire AL (2008) Beyond shared decision making: an expanded typology of medical decisions. Med Decis Making 28:699–705CrossRefPubMed Whitney SN, Holmes-Rovner M, Brody H, Schneider C, McCullough LB, Volk RJ, McGuire AL (2008) Beyond shared decision making: an expanded typology of medical decisions. Med Decis Making 28:699–705CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Cancer patients’ preferences for therapy decisions can be grouped into categories and separated by demographic factors
Authors
Jana Arnholdt
Jörg Haier
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0171-5216
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1335
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-017-2390-x

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 8/2017 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.