Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Cancer Education 2/2011

01-06-2011

Urologists’ Attitudes Regarding Information Sharing with Prostate Cancer Patients—Is There a Common Ground for Collaboration with Family Physicians?

Authors: Orit Cohen Castel, Mordechai Alperin, Lea Ungar, Ina Kravtsov, Gilad E. Amiel, Khaled Karkabi

Published in: Journal of Cancer Education | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Clinicians often fail to adequately meet prostate cancer patients’ information needs, and patients may receive different kinds of information from their doctors. This study aims to describe urologists’ attitudes regarding information sharing with prostate cancer patients and to compare these findings with the previously published attitudes of Israeli family physicians. A questionnaire (11 items) was mailed to 87 board-certified practicing urologists. Fifty-four physicians (66%) completed the questionnaires. Sixty-one percent of respondents stated that patients should be told the complete truth about their disease. Ninety-six percent of respondents felt competent at breaking bad news and stated they would discuss emotions with patients. The majority of physicians would provide general information when referring for a medical procedure, discussing treatment options or a patient’s prognosis. Fifty-seven percent of respondents preferred that patients be autonomous in their decision making. Only 26% of respondents believed that family physicians should communicate medical information to patients at the preliminary diagnostic stages. There was no significant difference in the attitudes expressed by urologists and family physicians towards the amount of information they would share with prostate cancer patients and in their preferences regarding treatment decision making. Urologists in Israel recognize the importance of sharing information with prostate cancer patients. Although urologists share similar attitudes with family physicians, they do not recognize the role that family physicians play in caring for prostate cancer patients. Further studies are needed to design and implement effective ways to improve the communication and collaboration between urologists and family physicians for the benefit of prostate cancer patients.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Espey DK, Wu XC, Swan J et al (2008) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1672–1694CrossRef Espey DK, Wu XC, Swan J et al (2008) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1672–1694CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Woods NF et al (2003) Treatment decision making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urol Oncol 21:93–100PubMedCrossRef Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Woods NF et al (2003) Treatment decision making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urol Oncol 21:93–100PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Holmes-Rovner M, Stableford S, Fagerlin A et al (2005) Evidence-based patient choice: a prostate cancer decision aid in plain language. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 5:16PubMedCrossRef Holmes-Rovner M, Stableford S, Fagerlin A et al (2005) Evidence-based patient choice: a prostate cancer decision aid in plain language. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 5:16PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Schostak M, Wiegel T, Muller M et al (2004) Shared decision-making results from an interdisciplinary consulting service for prostate cancer. World J Urol 22:441–448PubMedCrossRef Schostak M, Wiegel T, Muller M et al (2004) Shared decision-making results from an interdisciplinary consulting service for prostate cancer. World J Urol 22:441–448PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Echlin KN, Rees CE (2002) Information needs and information-seeking behaviors of men with prostate cancer and their partners: a review of the literature. Cancer Nurs 25:35–41PubMedCrossRef Echlin KN, Rees CE (2002) Information needs and information-seeking behaviors of men with prostate cancer and their partners: a review of the literature. Cancer Nurs 25:35–41PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Holmboe ES, Contaco J (2000) Treatment decision for localized prostate cancer. Asking man what’s important. J Gen Intern Med 15:694–701PubMedCrossRef Holmboe ES, Contaco J (2000) Treatment decision for localized prostate cancer. Asking man what’s important. J Gen Intern Med 15:694–701PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Steginga SK, Occhipinti S (2004) The application of the heuristic–systematic processing model to treatment decision making about prostate cancer. Med Decis Mak 24:573–583CrossRef Steginga SK, Occhipinti S (2004) The application of the heuristic–systematic processing model to treatment decision making about prostate cancer. Med Decis Mak 24:573–583CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wong F, Stewart DE, Dancey J et al (2000) Men with prostate cancer: influence of psychological factors on informational needs and decision making. J Psychosom Res 49:13–19PubMedCrossRef Wong F, Stewart DE, Dancey J et al (2000) Men with prostate cancer: influence of psychological factors on informational needs and decision making. J Psychosom Res 49:13–19PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Michie A, Rosebert C, Heaversedge J et al (1996) The effects of different kinds of information on women attending an outpatient breast clinic. Psychol Health Med 1:285–296CrossRef Michie A, Rosebert C, Heaversedge J et al (1996) The effects of different kinds of information on women attending an outpatient breast clinic. Psychol Health Med 1:285–296CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Harrison-Woermke DE, Graydon JE (1993) Perceived informational needs of breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy after excisional biopsy and axillary node dissection. Cancer Nurs 16:449–455PubMedCrossRef Harrison-Woermke DE, Graydon JE (1993) Perceived informational needs of breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy after excisional biopsy and axillary node dissection. Cancer Nurs 16:449–455PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Derdiarian AK (1989) Effects of information on recently diagnosed cancer patients’ and spouses’ satisfaction with care. Cancer Nurs 12:285–292PubMedCrossRef Derdiarian AK (1989) Effects of information on recently diagnosed cancer patients’ and spouses’ satisfaction with care. Cancer Nurs 12:285–292PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Wilson J, Kennedy K, Ewings P, Macdonagh R (2008) Analysis of consultant decision making in the management of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 11:288–293PubMedCrossRef Wilson J, Kennedy K, Ewings P, Macdonagh R (2008) Analysis of consultant decision making in the management of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 11:288–293PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Davison BJ, Kirk P, Degner LF et al (1999) Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns 37:255–263PubMedCrossRef Davison BJ, Kirk P, Degner LF et al (1999) Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns 37:255–263PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Ford ME, Vernon SW, Havstad SL et al (2006) Factors influencing behavioral intention regarding prostate cancer screening among older African-American men. J Natl Med Assoc 98:505–514PubMed Ford ME, Vernon SW, Havstad SL et al (2006) Factors influencing behavioral intention regarding prostate cancer screening among older African-American men. J Natl Med Assoc 98:505–514PubMed
15.
go back to reference Cohen H, Britten N (2003) Who decides about prostate cancer treatment? A qualitative study. Fam Pract 20:724–729PubMedCrossRef Cohen H, Britten N (2003) Who decides about prostate cancer treatment? A qualitative study. Fam Pract 20:724–729PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Basler JW, Jenkins C, Swanson G (2005) Multidisciplinary management of prostate malignancy. Curr Urol Rep 6(3):228–234PubMedCrossRef Basler JW, Jenkins C, Swanson G (2005) Multidisciplinary management of prostate malignancy. Curr Urol Rep 6(3):228–234PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sternberg CN, Krainer M, Oh WK et al (2006) The medical management of prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary team approach. BJU Int 99:22–17PubMedCrossRef Sternberg CN, Krainer M, Oh WK et al (2006) The medical management of prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary team approach. BJU Int 99:22–17PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Cohen Castel O, Ungar L, Alperin M et al (2008) Family physicians’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding information sharing with prostate cancer patients throughout the course of the disease. Support Care Cancer 16:955–961PubMedCrossRef Cohen Castel O, Ungar L, Alperin M et al (2008) Family physicians’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding information sharing with prostate cancer patients throughout the course of the disease. Support Care Cancer 16:955–961PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1997) Shared decision making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 44:681–692PubMedCrossRef Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1997) Shared decision making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 44:681–692PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor C et al (2001) Breaking bad news about cancer: patient’s preferences for communication. J Clin Oncol 19:2049–2056PubMed Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor C et al (2001) Breaking bad news about cancer: patient’s preferences for communication. J Clin Oncol 19:2049–2056PubMed
21.
go back to reference Roter LA, Hall JA, Aoki Y (2002) Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. JAMA 288:756–764PubMedCrossRef Roter LA, Hall JA, Aoki Y (2002) Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review. JAMA 288:756–764PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Urologists’ Attitudes Regarding Information Sharing with Prostate Cancer Patients—Is There a Common Ground for Collaboration with Family Physicians?
Authors
Orit Cohen Castel
Mordechai Alperin
Lea Ungar
Ina Kravtsov
Gilad E. Amiel
Khaled Karkabi
Publication date
01-06-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0885-8195
Electronic ISSN: 1543-0154
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0171-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Journal of Cancer Education 2/2011 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