An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions - PubMed (original) (raw)
An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions
Karen Sepucha et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Feb.
Abstract
Objective: To explore an approach to measuring the quality of decisions made in the treatment of early stage breast cancer, focusing on patients' decision-specific knowledge and the concordance between patients' stated preferences for treatment outcomes and treatment received.
Methods: Candidate knowledge and value items were identified after an extensive review of the published literature as well as reports on 27 focus groups and 46 individual interviews with breast cancer survivors. Items were subjected to cognitive interviews with six additional patients. A preliminary decision quality measure consisting of five knowledge items and four value items was pilot tested with 35 breast cancer survivors who also completed the control preferences scale and the decisional conflict scale (DCS).
Results: Preference for control and knowledge did not vary by treatment. The mean of the participants' knowledge scores was 54%. There was no correlation between the knowledge scores and the informed subscale of the DCS (Pearson r = .152, n = 32, p = 0.408). Patients who preferred to keep their breast were over five times as likely to have breast-conserving surgery than those who did not (OR 5.33, 95% CI (1.2, 24.5), p = 0.06). Patients who wanted to avoid radiation were six times as likely to choose mastectomy than those who did not (OR 6.4, 95% CI (1.34, 30.61), p = 0.04).
Conclusion: Measuring decision quality by assessing patients' decision-specific knowledge and concordance between their values and treatment received, is feasible and important. Further work is necessary to overcome the methodological challenges identified in this pilot work.
Practice implications: Guidelines for early stage breast cancer emphasize the importance of including patients' preferences in decisions about treatment. The ability of doctors and patients to make decisions that reflect the considered preferences of well-informed patients can and should be measured.
Similar articles
- Can women with early-stage breast cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy?
Collins ED, Moore CP, Clay KF, Kearing SA, O'Connor AM, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Barth RJ Jr, Sepucha KR. Collins ED, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Feb 1;27(4):519-25. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.6215. Epub 2008 Dec 29. J Clin Oncol. 2009. PMID: 19114703 - An informed decision? Breast cancer patients and their knowledge about treatment.
Fagerlin A, Lakhani I, Lantz PM, Janz NK, Morrow M, Schwartz K, Deapen D, Salem B, Liu L, Katz SJ. Fagerlin A, et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Dec;64(1-3):303-12. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.03.010. Epub 2006 Jul 24. Patient Educ Couns. 2006. PMID: 16860523 - Exploring the black box of a decision aid: what information do patients select from an interactive Cd-Rom on treatment options in breast cancer?
Molenaar S, Sprangers M, Oort F, Rutgers E, Luiten E, Mulder J, van Meeteren M, de Haes H. Molenaar S, et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Jan;65(1):122-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.06.022. Epub 2006 Sep 1. Patient Educ Couns. 2007. PMID: 16945498 - Information acquisition for women facing surgical treatment for breast cancer: influencing factors and selected outcomes.
O'Leary KA, Estabrooks CA, Olson K, Cumming C. O'Leary KA, et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Dec;69(1-3):5-19. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.08.002. Epub 2007 Sep 24. Patient Educ Couns. 2007. PMID: 17889495 Review. - Breast cancer disparities and decision-making among U.S. women.
Polacek GN, Ramos MC, Ferrer RL. Polacek GN, et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Feb;65(2):158-65. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.06.003. Epub 2006 Jul 25. Patient Educ Couns. 2007. PMID: 16870385 Review.
Cited by
- A Web-Based Decision Aid for Caregivers of Persons With Dementia With Firearm Access (Safe at Home Study): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.
McCarthy V, Portz J, Fischer SM, Greenway E, Johnson RL, Knoepke CE, Matlock DD, Omeragic F, Peterson RA, Ranney ML, Betz ME. McCarthy V, et al. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023 Jan 31;12:e43702. doi: 10.2196/43702. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023. PMID: 36719721 Free PMC article. - A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance.
Veenstra CM, Ellis KR, Abrahamse P, Ward KC, Morris AM, Hawley ST. Veenstra CM, et al. BMC Cancer. 2022 Oct 13;22(1):1060. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10131-3. BMC Cancer. 2022. PMID: 36229796 Free PMC article. - Association Between Surgery Preference and Receipt in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ After Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Ancillary Study of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E4112).
Fazeli S, Snyder BS, Gareen IF, Lehman CD, Khan SA, Romanoff J, Gatsonis CA, Corsetti RL, Rahbar H, Spell DW, Blankstein KB, Han LK, Sabol JL, Bumberry JR, Miller KD, Sparano JA, Comstock CE, Wagner LI, Carlos RC. Fazeli S, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 May 2;5(5):e2210331. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.10331. JAMA Netw Open. 2022. PMID: 35536580 Free PMC article. - 'I Don't Like Uncertainty, I Like to Know': How and why uveal melanoma patients consent to life expectancy prognostication.
Brown SL, Fisher PL, Morgan A, Davies C, Olabi Y, Hope-Stone L, Heimann H, Hussain R, Cherry MG. Brown SL, et al. Health Expect. 2022 Aug;25(4):1498-1507. doi: 10.1111/hex.13490. Epub 2022 Apr 26. Health Expect. 2022. PMID: 35474381 Free PMC article. - A Framework for Clinicians to Improve the Decision-Making Process in Return to Sport.
Yung KK, Ardern CL, Serpiello FR, Robertson S. Yung KK, et al. Sports Med Open. 2022 Apr 13;8(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s40798-022-00440-z. Sports Med Open. 2022. PMID: 35416633 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical