Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2011

01-08-2011 | Preclinical study

The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once

Authors: Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, Andrea M. Angott, Peter A. Ubel

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Breast cancer patients must often decide between multiple adjuvant therapy options to prevent cancer recurrence. Standard practice, as implemented in current decision support tools, is to present information about all options simultaneously, but psychology research suggests that sequential decision processes might improve decision making. We tested whether asking women to consider hormonal therapy and chemotherapy separately would improve women’s risk knowledge and/or affect treatment intentions. We conducted an Internet-administered experimental survey of a demographically diverse sample of 1,781 women ages 40–74. Participants were randomized to experience a standard, comprehensive decision process versus sequential (one at a time) decisions regarding adjuvant therapy options for a hypothetical breast cancer patient with an estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumor. We assessed comprehension of key statistics, perceptions of treatment effectiveness, and perceived interest in adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as participants’ numeracy levels. When participants made sequential decisions, they demonstrated greater comprehension of decision-relevant risk statistics, as compared to when they made decisions all at once (all P’s < 0.001). Among higher-numeracy participants, those making sequential decisions were less interested in chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Lower-numeracy participants who considered all options simultaneously were insensitive to the degree of risk reduction, but those who made sequential decisions were sensitive (P = 0.03). In conclusion, presenting adjuvant therapy options sequentially improves women’s comprehension of incremental treatment benefit and increases less numerate women’s sensitivity to the magnitude of the achievable risk reduction over standard, all at once approaches. Sequential approaches to adjuvant therapy decisions may reduce use of chemotherapy among those at low risk for recurrence.
Literature
1.
go back to reference O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle SD, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, Tait V, Tetroe J, Fiset V, Barry M, Jones J (2003) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001431PubMed O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle SD, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, Tait V, Tetroe J, Fiset V, Barry M, Jones J (2003) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001431PubMed
2.
go back to reference Peele PB, Siminoff LA, Xu Y, Ravdin PM (2005) Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information. Med Decis Making 25:301–307PubMedCrossRef Peele PB, Siminoff LA, Xu Y, Ravdin PM (2005) Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information. Med Decis Making 25:301–307PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Siminoff LA, Gordon NH, Silverman P, Budd T, Ravdin PM (2006) A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer. Psychooncology 15:1001–1003PubMedCrossRef Siminoff LA, Gordon NH, Silverman P, Budd T, Ravdin PM (2006) A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer. Psychooncology 15:1001–1003PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Belkora J, Rugo HS, Moore DH, Hutton D, Esserman L (2008) Risk communication with patients with breast cancer: cautionary notes about printing adjuvant! estimates. Lancet Oncol 9:602–603PubMedCrossRef Belkora J, Rugo HS, Moore DH, Hutton D, Esserman L (2008) Risk communication with patients with breast cancer: cautionary notes about printing adjuvant! estimates. Lancet Oncol 9:602–603PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2008) Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer 113(12):3382–3390PubMedCrossRef Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2008) Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer 113(12):3382–3390PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hutton DW, Belkora JK, Shachter RD, Moore DH (2009) Are patients getting the “gist” in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer treatment. J Cancer Educ 24:194–199PubMedCrossRef Hutton DW, Belkora JK, Shachter RD, Moore DH (2009) Are patients getting the “gist” in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer treatment. J Cancer Educ 24:194–199PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Belkora JK, Rugo HS, Moore DH, Hutton DW, Chen DF, Esserman LJ (2009) Oncologist use of the adjuvant! model for risk communication: a pilot study examining patient knowledge of 10-year prognosis. BMC Cancer 9:127PubMedCrossRef Belkora JK, Rugo HS, Moore DH, Hutton DW, Chen DF, Esserman LJ (2009) Oncologist use of the adjuvant! model for risk communication: a pilot study examining patient knowledge of 10-year prognosis. BMC Cancer 9:127PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lipkus IM, Peters E, Kimmick G, Liotcheva V, Marcom P (2010) Breast cancer patients’ treatment expectations after exposure to the decision aid program adjuvant online: the influence of numeracy. Med Decis Making 30:464–473PubMedCrossRef Lipkus IM, Peters E, Kimmick G, Liotcheva V, Marcom P (2010) Breast cancer patients’ treatment expectations after exposure to the decision aid program adjuvant online: the influence of numeracy. Med Decis Making 30:464–473PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Braddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W (1999) Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 282(24):2313–2320PubMedCrossRef Braddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W (1999) Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 282(24):2313–2320PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK (2007) Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev 64(2):169–190PubMedCrossRef Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK (2007) Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev 64(2):169–190PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006PubMedCrossRef Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why more is less, 1st edn. Harper Collins, New York Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why more is less, 1st edn. Harper Collins, New York
14.
go back to reference Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA (2005) Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making 25(4):398–405PubMedCrossRef Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA (2005) Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making 25(4):398–405PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Roberts TR, Derry HA, Ubel PA (2008) Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurence. J Health Commun 13(2):107–124PubMedCrossRef Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Roberts TR, Derry HA, Ubel PA (2008) Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurence. J Health Commun 13(2):107–124PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V (2007) Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 27:34–43PubMedCrossRef Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V (2007) Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 27:34–43PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM (2007) Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl 13(1):11–21PubMedCrossRef Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM (2007) Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl 13(1):11–21PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Price M, Cameron R, Butow P (2007) Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception—accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns 69:121–128PubMedCrossRef Price M, Cameron R, Butow P (2007) Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception—accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns 69:121–128PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith DM (2007) Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS). Med Decis Making 27(5):672–680PubMedCrossRef Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith DM (2007) Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS). Med Decis Making 27(5):672–680PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A (2007) Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 27(5):663–671PubMedCrossRef Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A (2007) Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 27(5):663–671PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Stata statistical software (2009) 11 edn. Stata Corporation, College Station, TX Stata statistical software (2009) 11 edn. Stata Corporation, College Station, TX
22.
go back to reference Hinson J, Jameson T, Whitney P (2003) Impulsive decision making and working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 29:298–306PubMedCrossRef Hinson J, Jameson T, Whitney P (2003) Impulsive decision making and working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 29:298–306PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Yates JF, Veinott ES, Patalano AL (2003) Hard decisions, bad decisions: on decision quality and decision aiding. In: Schneider SL, Shanteau JC (eds) Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 13–63 Yates JF, Veinott ES, Patalano AL (2003) Hard decisions, bad decisions: on decision quality and decision aiding. In: Schneider SL, Shanteau JC (eds) Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 13–63
24.
go back to reference Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consumer Res 9:80–98CrossRef Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consumer Res 9:80–98CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hsee CK, Blount S, Lowenstein GF, Bazerman MH (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull 125(5):576–590CrossRef Hsee CK, Blount S, Lowenstein GF, Bazerman MH (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull 125(5):576–590CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2004) “Is 28% good or bad?” Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making 24(2):142–148PubMedCrossRef Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2004) “Is 28% good or bad?” Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making 24(2):142–148PubMedCrossRef
27.
Metadata
Title
The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once
Authors
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
Andrea M. Angott
Peter A. Ubel
Publication date
01-08-2011
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1193-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2011 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine