Article

Decision-Making Process Reported by Medicare Patients Who Had Coronary Artery Stenting or Surgery for Prostate Cancer

Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 02/2012; 27(8):911-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2009-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patients facing decisions should be told about their options, have the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons, and have their preferences reflected in the final decision.
To learn how decisions were made for two major preference-sensitive interventions.
Mail survey of probability samples of patients who underwent the procedures.
Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who had surgery for prostate cancer or elective coronary artery stenting in the last half of 2008.
Patients' reports of which options were presented for serious consideration, the amount of discussion of the pros and cons of the chosen option, and if they were asked about their preferences.
The majority (64%) of prostate cancer surgery patients reported that at least one alternative to surgery was presented as a serious option. Almost all (94%) said they and their doctors discussed the pros, and 63% said they discussed the cons of surgery "a lot" or "some". Most (76%) said they were asked about their treatment preferences. Few who received stents said they were presented with options to seriously consider (10%). While most (77%) reported talking with doctors about the reasons for stents "a lot" or "some", few (19%) reported talking about the cons. Only 16% said they were asked about their treatment preferences.
While prostate cancer surgery patients reported more involvement in decision making than elective stent patients, the reports of both groups document the need for increased efforts to inform and involve patients facing preference-sensitive intervention decisions.

0 Followers
 · 
153 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe decision process and quality for common cancer screening and medication decisions by age group. We included 2941 respondents to a national Internet survey who made at least one decision about colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer screening, blood pressure or cholesterol medications. Respondents were queried about decision processes. Across the five decisions considered, decision process scores were similar (and generally low) across age groups for medication and cancer screening, indicating that all groups had poor involvement in medical decision making. Overall knowledge scores were low across age groups, with elderly (75+) having slightly higher knowledge about medications vs. younger respondents. Elderly respondents reported similar goals and concerns when making decisions, though placed greater importance of having peace of mind from a normal result for cancer screening vs. younger respondents. Across age groups, respondents reported poor decision processes about common medications and cancer screening, despite little evidence of benefit for some interventions (cancer screening, cholesterol lowering medicines in low risk elderly) and possibility of harm in the elderly. Particular care should be taken to help patients understand both benefit and risk of screening tests and routine medications. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Patient Education and Counseling 12/2014; 98(3). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2014.11.012 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Given the importance of physician attitudes about different treatments and the quality of life (QOL) in prostate cancer, we performed a national survey of specialists to assess treatment recommendations and perceptions of treatment-related survival and QOL.Methods:We mailed a self-administered survey instrument to a random sample of 1366 specialists in the US. Respondents were asked for treatment recommendations and survival that varied by PSA levels and Gleason scores and estimate QOL outcomes. Pearson's chi-square and multivariable regression models were used to test for differences in each outcome.Results:Response rates were similar for radiation oncologists (52.6%) and urologists (52.3%; P=0.92). Across all risk strata, urologists were more likely to recommend surgery than were radiation oncologists, for conditions ranging from PSA>20 and Gleason score 8-10 (35.2 vs 0.2%; P<0.001) to PSA 4-10 and Gleason score 7 (87.5 vs 20.9%; P<0.001). Radiation oncologists were also more likely to recommend radiation therapy relative to urologists (all P<0.001). From low- to high-risk prostate cancer, radiation oncologists and urologists perceived their treatment as being better for improving survival (all P<0.001). Each specialty also viewed their treatment as having less urinary incontinence (all P<0.001).Conclusions:Radiation oncologists and urologists both prefer the treatment modalities they offer, perceive them to be more effective and to lead to a better QOL. Patients may be receiving biased information, and a truly informed consent process with shared decision-making may be possible only if they are evaluated by both specialties before deciding upon a treatment course.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease advance online publication, 25 February 2014; doi:10.1038/pcan.2014.3.
    Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases 02/2014; DOI:10.1038/pcan.2014.3 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:With the growing concerns about overtreatment in prostate cancer, the extent to which radiation oncologists and urologists perceive active surveillance (AS) as effective and recommend it to patients are unknown.Objective:To assess opinions of radiation oncologists and urologists about their perceptions of AS and treatment recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer.Research Design:National survey of specialists.Participants:Radiation oncologists and urologists practicing in the United States.Measures:A total of 1366 respondents were asked whether AS was effective and whether it was underused nationally, whether their patients were interested in AS, and treatment recommendations for low-risk prostate cancer. Pearson's (2) test and multivariate logistic regression were used to test for differences in physician perceptions on AS and treatment recommendations.Results:Overall, 717 (52.5%) of physicians completed the survey with minimal differences between specialties (P=0.92). Although most physicians reported that AS is effective (71.9%) and underused in the United States (80.0%), 71.0% stated that their patients were not interested in AS. For low-risk prostate cancer, more physicians recommended radical prostatectomy (44.9%) or brachytherapy (35.4%); fewer endorsed AS (22.1%). On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend surgery [odds ratio (OR): 4.19; P<0.001] and AS (OR: 2.55; P<0.001), but less likely to recommend brachytherapy (OR: 0.13; P<0.001) and external beam radiation therapy (OR: 0.11; P<0.001) compared with radiation oncologists.Conclusions and Relevance:Most prostate cancer specialists in the United States believe AS effective and underused for low-risk prostate cancer, yet continue to recommend the primary treatments their specialties deliver.
    Medical Care 07/2014; 52(7):579-85. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000155 · 2.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
12 Downloads
Available from
Oct 30, 2014