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.
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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Medical care. 07/2014; 52(7):579-85.
  • Source
    [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. · 1.25 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; · 2.10 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Oct 30, 2014