TY - JOUR
T1 - Promoting shared decision making in advanced cancer
T2 - Development and piloting of a patient communication aid
AU - Henselmans, Inge
AU - Brugel, Sabrina D
AU - de Haes, Hanneke C J M
AU - Wolvetang, Kim J A
AU - de Vries, Laura M
AU - Pieterse, Arwen H
AU - Baas-Thijssen, Monique C M
AU - de Vos, Filip Y F
AU - van Laarhoven, Hanneke W M
AU - Smets, Ellen M A
N1 - Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/5/1
Y1 - 2019/5/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer.METHODS: The PCA consists of education about SDM, a question prompt list, and values clarification methods. Study 1. A first version was presented to 13 patients, 8 relatives and 14 bereaved relatives in interviews. Study 2. A second version was used by 18 patients in a pilot study. Patients and oncologists were interviewed, patients were surveyed, and consultations were audio-recorded.RESULTS: Respondents reported that the aid facilitated patient control over information, raised choice awareness and promoted elaboration. Risks were identified, most importantly that the aid might upset patients. Also, some respondents reported that the PCA did not, or would not support decision making because they felt sufficiently competent, did not perceive a role for themselves, or did not perceive that the decision required elaboration.CONCLUSIONS: Opinions on the usefulness of the PCA varied. It was challenging to raise awareness about the presence of a choice, and to find a balance between comprehensive information and sensitivity.PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A future study should demonstrate whether the PCA can improve SDM, and whether this effect is stronger when oncologists receive training.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To learn how to configure a patient communication aid (PCA) to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) about treatment for advanced cancer.METHODS: The PCA consists of education about SDM, a question prompt list, and values clarification methods. Study 1. A first version was presented to 13 patients, 8 relatives and 14 bereaved relatives in interviews. Study 2. A second version was used by 18 patients in a pilot study. Patients and oncologists were interviewed, patients were surveyed, and consultations were audio-recorded.RESULTS: Respondents reported that the aid facilitated patient control over information, raised choice awareness and promoted elaboration. Risks were identified, most importantly that the aid might upset patients. Also, some respondents reported that the PCA did not, or would not support decision making because they felt sufficiently competent, did not perceive a role for themselves, or did not perceive that the decision required elaboration.CONCLUSIONS: Opinions on the usefulness of the PCA varied. It was challenging to raise awareness about the presence of a choice, and to find a balance between comprehensive information and sensitivity.PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A future study should demonstrate whether the PCA can improve SDM, and whether this effect is stronger when oncologists receive training.
KW - Adult
KW - Communication
KW - Decision Making
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Neoplasms/pathology
KW - Palliative Care/psychology
KW - Patient Education as Topic
KW - Patient Participation
KW - Physician-Patient Relations
KW - Pilot Projects
KW - Program Evaluation
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85058969992&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30591283
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.018
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 30591283
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 102
SP - 916
EP - 923
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
IS - 5
ER -