Breast cancer patient participation in surgical treatment decision making: A cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 100214
Author(s):  
Zihan Zhao ◽  
Shurui Wang ◽  
Aomei Shen ◽  
Wanmin Qiang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Cancer Patient ◽  
Patient Participation ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

Treatment decision-making and financial toxicity in metastatic breast cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 97-97
Author(s):  
Clara Wan ◽  
Courtney Williams ◽  
Stacey A. Ingram ◽  
Valerie Lawhon ◽  
Jennifer Young Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Financial Toxicity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Demographic ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

97 Background: Shared decision-making (SDM), a process where patients partner with their physician to incorporate personal preferences into treatment decisions, is a tenet of high-value healthcare. It is unknown if high-value care associated with SDM manifests in the form of decreased out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, this study analyzes the relationship between patient preference for SDM and financial toxicity in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women age ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama between 2017 and 2019. SDM preference and financial toxicity were measured using the Control Preferences Scale and the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool (11-item scale from 0-44, with lower scores indicating worse FT), respectively. Patient demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d or Cramer’s V. Differences in financial toxicity by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist. Results: In 79 women with MBC, 41% preferred SDM, 33% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 22% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (48% vs. 40%; V = .15), higher income (52% vs. 44%; V = .09), and privately insured (47% vs. 41%; V = .11). Overall median COST score was 23 (interquartile range 16-30), which varied modestly by SDM preference. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, similar financial toxicity levels were found in patients who preferred SDM (COST 22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19-25), patient-driven decision making (COST 22, 95% CI 18-26), and provider-driven decision making (COST 24, 95% CI 20-27). Conclusions: Similar levels of financial toxicity were found in patients with differing decision–making preferences regarding their MBC treatment, which may be secondary to lack of discussions about cost. Further research is needed to determine if and how financial toxicity is being identified or included within decision-making.

Patient and surgeon correlates of shared decision making for surgical breast cancer treatment

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6031-6031
Author(s):  
S. Hawley ◽  
P. Lantz ◽  
B. Salem ◽  
A. Fagerlin ◽  
N. Janz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Right

6031 Background: The choice of surgical breast cancer treatment represents an opportunity for shared decision making (SDM), since both mastectomy and breast conserving surgery are viable options. Yet women vary in their desire for involvement in this decision. Correlates of SDM and/or the level of involvement in breast cancer surgical treatment decision-making are not known. Methods: Breast cancer patients of Detroit and Los Angeles SEER registries were mailed a questionnaire shortly after diagnosis in 2002 (N = 1,800, RR: 77%). Their responses were merged with a surgeon survey (N = 456, RR: 80%) for a dataset of 1,547 patients of 318 surgeons. Surgical treatment decision making was categorized into: 1) surgeon-based; 2) shared; or 3) patient-based. The concordance between a woman’s self-reported actual and desired decisional involvement was categorized as having more, less, or the right amount of involvement. Decision making and concordance were each analyzed as three-level dependent variables using multinomial logistic regression controlling for clustering within surgeons. Independent variables included patient clinical, treatment and demographic factors, surgeon demographic and practice-related factors, and a measure of surgeon-patient communication. Results: 37% of women reported the surgery decision was shared, 25% that it was surgeon-based, and 38% that it was patient-based. Two-thirds experienced the right amount of involvement, while 13% had less and 19% had more. Compared to women who reported a shared decision, those with surgeon-based decision were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely to have male surgeons, and those reporting a patient-based decision were more likely to have received mastectomy vs. breast conserving surgery. Women who were less involved in the surgery decision than they wanted were younger and had less education, while those with more involvement (vs. the right amount) more often had male surgeons. Patient-surgeon communication was associated with decisional involvement. Conclusions: Correlates of SDM and decisional involvement relating to surgical breast cancer treatment differ. Determining patients’ desired role in decision making may as important as achieving a shared decision for evaluating perceived quality of care. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Financial distress, communication, and cancer treatment decision making: Does cost matter?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6506-6506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yousuf Zafar ◽  
Amy Pickar Abernethy ◽  
James A Tulsky ◽  
Peter A Ubel ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Median Income ◽  
Incurable Cancer ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Treatment Decision Making

6506 Background: Financial distress (FD) increases the burden of living with cancer. Even insured patients may experience considerable FD, but little is known about whether patients want to include cost discussions in treatment decision-making. Methods: This is an ongoing cross-sectional study of insured adults with solid tumors on anticancer therapy for ≥1 month. Consecutive patients were surveyed, in person, at a referral center and 3 rural oncology clinics. Participants were asked about FD (via a validated measure), out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, discussion of costs with their doctor, and decision-making. Medical records were reviewed for disease and treatment data. Logistic regression assessed the relationship between FD and cost communication. Results: 119 participants (85% response) had a median age of 60 years (range 27-86). 54% were men, 29% non-white, and 96% completed high school. 81% had incurable cancer. 58% had private insurance. Median income was $50,000/yr. Median OOP costs were $480/mo. The mean FD score (6.7, SD 2.5) corresponded to moderate FD. 19% reported high/overwhelming FD. Overall, 48% (n=57) expressed any desire to discuss costs with their doctor, but only 21% (n=25) had actually done so. Of the 19% with highest FD, 36% (n=8) had discussed costs with a doctor, and 68% (n=15) expressed any desire to discuss costs. The most common reasons for not discussing costs with doctors were: “no problems with costs” (n=47); “want best care regardless of cost” (n=36); and “doctors shouldn’t have to worry about costs” (n=19). Of those who discussed costs with their doctor, 48% (n=12) felt the discussion helped decrease costs. 54% (n=64) wanted their doctors to account for costs in cancer treatment decision-making; 20% (n=24) always wanted costs considered in decision-making. High FD was the only variable associated with greater willingness to discuss costs (adjusted OR 2.81; 95%CI 1.05-7.50; p=0.04). Conclusions: FD was prevalent among insured cancer patients. A large proportion wanted costs discussed with doctors and included in treatment decision-making. Discussing finances may lower costs, but the discussion rarely occurs. Communication and decision-making present a potential focus for intervening on FD.

scholarly journals Factors associated with patient involvement in surgical treatment decision making for breast cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah T. Hawley ◽  
Paula M. Lantz ◽  
Nancy K. Janz ◽  
Barbara Salem ◽  
Monica Morrow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Treatment Decision Making
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document