A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced cancer.

Massey Cancer Center of Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Education, VCU School of Medicine, Department of Social and Behavioral Health, and the Virginia Cancer Institute, Richmond, Virginia 23298-0230, USA.
The journal of supportive oncology 03/2011; 9(2):79-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.suponc.2010.12.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Most cancer patients do not have an explicit discussion about prognosis and treatment despite documented adverse outcomes. Few decision aids have been developed to assist the difficult discussions of palliative management. We developed decision aids for people with advanced in curable breast, colorectal, lung, and hormone-refractory prostate cancers facing first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line chemotherapy. We recruited patients from our urban oncology clinic after gaining the permission of their treating oncologist. We measured knowledge of curability and treatment benefit before and after the intervention. Twenty-six of 27 (96%) patients completed the aids, with ameanage of 63, 56% female, 56% married, 56% African American, and 67% with a high school education or more. Most patients (14/27, 52%) thought a person with their advanced cancer could be cured, which was reduced (to 8/26, 31%, P = 0.15) after the decision aid. Nearly all overestimated the effect of palliative chemotherapy. No distress was noted, and hope did not change. The majority (20/27, 74%) found the information helpful to them, and almost all (25/27, 93%) wanted to share the information with their family and physicians. It is possible to give incurable patients their prognosis, treatment options, and options for improving end-of-life care without causing distress or lack of hope. Almost all find the information helpful and want to share it with doctors and family. Research is needed to test the findings in a larger sample and measure the outcomes of truthful information on quality of life, quality of care, and costs.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advance care planning honors patients' goals and preferences for future care by creating a plan for when illness or injury impedes the ability to think or communicate about health decisions. Fewer than 50% of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive in their medical record, and physicians are accurate only about 65% of the time when predicting patient preferences for intensive care. Decision aids can support the advance care planning process by providing a structured approach to informing patients about care options and prompting them to document and communicate their preferences. This review, commissioned as a technical brief by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care Program, provides a broad overview of current use of and research related to decision aids for adult advance care planning. Using interviews of key informants and a search of the gray and published literature from January 1990 to May 2014, the authors found that many decision aids are widely available but are not assessed in the empirical literature. The 16 published studies testing decision aids as interventions for adult advance care planning found that most are proprietary or not publicly available. Some are constructed for the general population, whereas others address disease-specific conditions that have more predictable end-of-life scenarios and, therefore, more discrete choices. New decision aids should be designed that are responsive to diverse philosophical perspectives and flexible enough to change as patients gain experience with their personal illness courses. Future efforts should include further research, training of advance care planning facilitators, dissemination and access, and tapping the potential opportunities that lie in social media or other technologies.
    Annals of internal medicine 07/2014; 161(6). DOI:10.7326/M14-0644 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Patients require information to make informed decisions and consent to medical treatment. Shared decision making (SDM) is a methodology that promotes a patient-centred approach to informed consent and demonstrates respect for autonomyPurpose The purpose of this paper is to critically review the legal and ethical issues relevant to Canadian and UK informed consent and SDM practices and how these processes relate to current palliative care practices, with a particular emphasis on radiation therapy.Methodology A review of the English literature from 2003 to 2013 was performed using the databases PubMed (NML), OVID Medline and Google Scholar.Results and Conclusions The literature identifies that palliative cancer patients desire the opportunity to be involved with decision-making discussions, which has shown to increase knowledge and result in better health-related outcomes. However, ethical and legal issues regarding the practicality of including this patient population in SDM discussions raises questions about validity of consent. For SDM to be considered a valid methodology to obtain informed consent, open and honest communication between the patient and multidisciplinary team is essential. Treatment options for palliative cancer patients are often complex and SDM allows healthcare professionals and patients to exchange information and negotiate feasible treatment options based on medical expertise and patient preferences.Legal frameworks have defined current standards of practice for various healthcare professions, including radiation therapy. Radiation therapists, as members of the multidisciplinary team, are currently key contributors in providing information to patients regarding the radiotherapy process. Individuals working within advanced practice roles have the ability to develop skills once considered to be within medical domains and have begun to incorporate the delegated act of obtaining informed consent into practice which has shown to increase professional autonomy, accountability and improves patient-centred care.
    Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice 09/2013; 13(03):340-349. DOI:10.1017/S1460396913000460
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The survival rates for patients living with cancer are increasing, due to recent advances in detection, prevention and treatment. It has been estimated that there were 28 million cancer survivors around the world in 2012. In the UK, for patients diagnosed in 2007, it is predicted that more than half of them will survive their cancer for 5 years or more. A large majority of cancer survivors report unmet supportive care needs and distressing symptoms and adverse long-term consequences related to their cancer. Cancer management could be optimized to better meet patients demand through technology, including mobile health (m-Health). m-Health is defined as the use of mobile communications and network technologies for health care. m-Health can help both patients and health-care professionals and play an important part in managing and delivering cancer care including managing side effects, supporting drug adherence, providing cancer information, planning and follow up and detecting and diagnosing cancer. Health authorities have already published guidelines regulating m-Health to insure patient safety and improve the accountability of its applications.
    Supportive Care Cancer 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00520-015-2627-7 · 2.50 Impact Factor