Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

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.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Research article

Shared decision making, physicians’ explanations, and treatment satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients

Authors: Kazuhiro Nakayama, Wakako Osaka, Nobuaki Matsubara, Tsutomu Takeuchi, Mayumi Toyoda, Noriyuki Ohtake, Hiroji Uemura

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Hormone therapy is one option for some types of prostate cancer. Shared decision making (SDM) is important in the decision making process, but SDM between prostate cancer patients receiving hormone therapy and physicians is not fully understood. This study tested hypotheses: “Patients’ perception of SDM is associated with treatment satisfaction, mediated by satisfaction with physicians’ explanations and perceived effective decision making” and “The amount of information provided to patients by physicians on diseases and treatment is associated with treatment satisfaction mediated by patients’ perceived SDM and satisfaction with physicians’ explanations.”

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online panel via a private research company in Japan. The participants in this study were patients registered with the panel who had received or were currently receiving hormone therapy for prostate cancer and physicians registered with the panel who were treating patients with prostate cancer. Measures used in this study included a nine-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, levels of satisfaction with physicians’ explanations and treatment satisfaction, and effective decision making for patients (feeling the choice is informed, value-based, likely to be implemented and expressing satisfaction with the choice), and a Shared Decision Making Questionnaire for Doctors. The hypotheses were examined using path analysis.

Results

In total, 124 patients and 150 physicians were included in the analyses. In keeping with our hypotheses, perceived SDM significantly correlated with the physicians’ explanations and perceived effective decision making for patients, and satisfaction with physicians’ explanations and perceived effective decision making for patients were both related to treatment satisfaction. Although the amount of information provided to patients was correlated with the perceived SDM, it was indirectly related to their satisfaction with physicians’ explanations.

Conclusions

When physicians encourage patients to be actively involved in making decisions about treatment through the SDM process while presenting a wide range of information at the start of hormone therapy, patients’ effective decision making and physicians’ explanations may be improved; consequently, the patients’ overall treatment satisfaction may be improved. Physicians who treat patients with prostate cancer may have underestimated the importance of SDM before starting hormone therapy, even greater extent than patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, Aarts J, Barr PJ, Berger Z, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;6:359.
2.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
3.
Elwyn G. The three talk model of shared decision making. In: Elwyn G, Edwards A, Thompson R, editors. Shared decision making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p. 78–85.CrossRef
4.
Stiggelbout AM, Van der Weijden T, De Wit MPT, Frosch D, Légaré F, Montori VM, et al. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the Centre of healthcare. BMJ. 2012;27:344.
5.
Chen RC, Clark JA, Talcott JA. Individualizing quality-of-life outcomes reporting: how localized prostate cancer treatments affect patients with different levels of baseline urinary, bowel, and sexual function. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(24):3916–22.CrossRef
6.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–24.CrossRef
7.
8.
Scherr KA, Fagerlin A, Hofer T, Scherer LD, Holmes-Rovner M, Williamson LD, et al. Physician recommendations trump patient preferences in prostate cancer treatment decisions. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37(1):56–69.CrossRef
9.
Holmes-Rovner M, Montgomery JS, Rovner DR, Scherer LD, Whitfield J, Kahn VC, et al. Informed decision making: assessment of the quality of physician communication about prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(8):999–1009.CrossRef
10.
Lamers RE, Cuypers M, Husson O, de Vries M, Kil PJ, Ruud Bosch JLH, et al. Patients are dissatisfied with information provision: perceived information provision and quality of life in prostate cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2016;25(6):633–40.CrossRef
11.
Albkri A, Girier D, Mestre A, Costa P, Droupy S, Chevrot A. Urinary incontinence, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret after prostate cancer treatment: a French national study. Urol Int. 2018;100(1):50–6.CrossRef
12.
van Stam MA, Pieterse AH, van der Poel HG, Ruud Bosch JLHR, Tillier C, Horenblas S, et al. Shared decision making in prostate cancer care - encouraging every patient to be actively involved in decision making or ensuring the patient preferred level of involvement? J Urol. 2018;200(3):582–9.CrossRef
13.
Victorson DE, Schuette S, Schalet BD, Kundu SD, Helfand BT, Novakovic K, et al. Factors affecting quality of life at different intervals after treatment of localized prostate cancer: unique influence of treatment decision making satisfaction, personality and sexual functioning. J Urol. 2016;196(5):1422–8.CrossRef
14.
Martínez-González NA, Plate A, Markun S, Senn O, Rosemann T, Neuner-Jehle S. Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1153–74.CrossRef
15.
Heinlein CA, Chang C. Androgen receptor in prostate cancer. Endocr Rev. 2004;25(2):276–308.CrossRef
16.
Inoue T, Ohyama C, Habuchi T. Hormonal therapy in prostate cancer. Drug Deliv Syst. 2009;415-20:24 In Japanese with English abstract.
17.
Kakehi Y, Sugimoto M, Taoka R. Committee for establishment of the evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer of the Japanese Urological Association. Evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for prostate cancer (summary: Japanese Urological Association, 2016 edition). Int J Urol. 2017;24(9):648–66.CrossRef
18.
19.
20.
Goto Y, Miura H, Wada T, Nishikawa M. Validation of the Japanese version of the 9-item Shard Decision making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shard Decision making Questionnaire for Doctors (SDM-Q-Doc) in primary care. Longevity Medical Research and Development Expenses 2018 General Research Report. https://​www.​ncgg.​go.​jp/​ncgg-kenkyu/​documents/​29/​29xx-05.​pdf. Accessed 20 July 2020. [in Japanese].
21.
O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRef
22.
Kawaguchi T, Azuma K, Yamaguchi T, Soeda H, Sekine Y, Koinuma M, et al. Development and validation of the Japanese version of the decisional conflict scale to investigate the value of pharmacists’ information: a before and after study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:50.CrossRef
23.
24.
Kline RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015.
25.
Nejati B, Lin CC, Imani V, Browall M, Lin CY, Broström A, et al. Validating patient and physician versions of the shared decision making questionnaire in oncology setting. Health Promot Perspect. 2019;9(2):105–14.CrossRef
26.
Orom H, Biddle C, Underwood W 3rd, Nelson CJ, Homish DL. What is a “good” treatment decision? Decisional, control, knowledge, treatment decision making, and quality of life in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(6):714–25.CrossRef
27.
Schaede U, Mahlich J, Nakayama M, Kobayashi H, Takahashi Y, Saito K, et al. Shared decision-making in patients with prostate cancer in Japan: patient preferences versus physician perceptions. J Glob Oncol. 2018;(4):1–9.
28.
Kehl KL, Landrum MB, Arora NK, Ganz PA, van Ryn M, Mack JW, et al. Association of actual and preferred decision roles with patient-reported quality of care: shared decision making in cancer care. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(1):50–8.CrossRef
29.
Driever EM, Stiggelbout AM, Brand PLP. Shared decision making: physicians’ preferred role, usual role and their perception of its key components. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(1):77–82.CrossRef
30.
Müller E, Diesing A, Rosahl A, Scholl I, Härter M, Buchholz A. Evaluation of a shared decision-making communication skills training for physicians treating patients with asthma: a mixed methods study using simulated patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):612.CrossRef
31.
Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Härter M. The 9-item shared decision making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):94–9.CrossRef
32.
Scholl IL, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, Buchholz A, Härter M. Development and psychometric properties of the shared decision making questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):284–90.CrossRef
33.
34.
Jung B, Stoll C, Feick G, Prott FJ, Zell J, Rudolph I, et al. Prostate cancer patients’ report on communication about endocrine therapy and its association with adherence. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142(2):465–70.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Shared decision making, physicians’ explanations, and treatment satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients
Authors
Kazuhiro Nakayama
Wakako Osaka
Nobuaki Matsubara
Tsutomu Takeuchi
Mayumi Toyoda
Noriyuki Ohtake
Hiroji Uemura
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01355-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research article

Differential influences of social support on app use for diabetes self-management – a mixed methods approach

Research article

Availability, price, and affordability of WHO priority maternal and child health medicine in public health facilities of Dessie, north-East Ethiopia

Research article

The considerations, experiences and support needs of family members making treatment decisions for patients admitted with major stroke: a qualitative study

Research article

Assessment of the impact of EHR heterogeneity for clinical research through a case study of silent brain infarction

Research article

Development, implementation, and prospective validation of a model to predict 60-day end-of-life in hospitalized adults upon admission at three sites

Research article

Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison