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


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Julie Bynum, Oct 30, 2014
  • Source
    • "In our study, potential risks of treatment were more discussed in surgical than in internal medicine departments, and patients from surgical wards received higher level of information. Braddock et al (6) also pointed out that surgeons spent more time informing their patients than general practitioners, and that general practitioners should be more involved in decision-making (31). However, Jukic et al (32) found that internists spent more time informing their patients than surgeons. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim To explore physician-patient communication practices during the process of obtaining informed consent in a hospital setting in Croatia. Methods Two hundred and fifty patients (response rate 78%) from five tertiary level hospitals in Zagreb, Croatia, anonymously filled in the questionnaire on informed consent and communication practices by Nemcekova et al in the period from April to December 2011. Results Eighty five percent of patients received complete, understandable information, presented in a considerate manner. Patients in surgical departments received a higher level of information than those in internal medicine departments. Patients were informed about health risks of the proposed treatments (in 74% of cases) and procedures (76%), health consequences of refusing a medical intervention (69%), and other methods of treatment (46%). However, patients pointed out a number of problems in physician-patient communication. Conclusion Communication practices during informed consent-obtaining process in hospitals in Zagreb are based on a model of shared decision-making, but paternalistic physician-patient relationship is still present. Our results indicate that Croatia is undergoing a transition in the physician-patient relationship and communication.
    Croatian Medical Journal 04/2013; 54(2):185-91. DOI:10.3325/cmj.2013.54.185 · 1.31 Impact Factor

  • Heart (British Cardiac Society) 12/2012; 98(24):1757-60. DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302823 · 5.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Although clinical guidelines recommend assessing quality of life, cancer aggressiveness and life expectancy for making localized prostate cancer treatment decisions, it is unknown whether instruments that objectively measure such outcomes have disseminated into clinical practice. In this context we determined whether quality of life and prediction instruments for prostate cancer have been adopted by radiation oncologists and urologists in the United States. Materials and methods: Using a nationally representative mail survey of 1,422 prostate cancer specialists in the United States, we queried about self-reported clinical implementation of quality of life instruments, prostate cancer nomograms and life expectancy prediction tools in late 2011. The Pearson chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression were used to determine differences in the use of each instrument by physician characteristics. Results: A total of 313 radiation oncologists and 328 urologists completed the survey for a 45% response rate. Although 55% of respondents reported using prostate cancer nomograms, only 27% and 23% reported using quality of life and life expectancy prediction instruments, respectively. On multivariate analysis urologists were less likely to use quality of life instruments than radiation oncologists (OR 0.40, p <0.001). Physicians who spent 30 minutes or more counseling patients were consistently more likely to use quality of life instruments (OR 2.57, p <0.001), prostate cancer nomograms (OR 1.83, p = 0.009) and life expectancy prediction tools (OR 1.85, p = 0.02) than those who spent less than 15 minutes. Conclusions: Although prostate cancer nomograms have been implemented into clinical practice to some degree, the use of quality of life and life expectancy tools has been more limited. Increased attention to implementing validated instruments into clinical practice may facilitate shared decision making for patients with prostate cancer.
    The Journal of urology 12/2012; 189(6). DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.174 · 4.47 Impact Factor
Show more