Abstract
Abstract 4953
Background:
Shared decision-making between patients and physicians is broadly advocated in medicine, however little research is available to understand whether this approach would be desirable to all patients regardless of disease type and severity or individual patient characteristics. While clinical decision-making in high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) is critical for a number of reasons including: associated comorbidity, symptom burden, and limited life expectancy, no evidence-base data currently exist on patients' preferences.
Aim:
The objective of this study is twofold: 1) to investigate to what extent high-risk MDS patients prefer to be involved in treatment decision making during consultation just after diagnosis; 2) to identify possible clinical, socio-demographic and patient-reported health status factors associated with patients' preferences for involvement in treatment decisions.
Patients and Methods:
Data were gathered through an ongoing international prospective observational study involving 15 countries that recruits newly diagnosed patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk IPSS score. All patients were classified according to the WHO histology classification. During the first encounter with their treating physicians, discussing treatment options just after diagnosis, patients were administered a previously internationally validated “control preference scale”. This scale broadly categorizes patients into one of three roles depending on the extent of their preferred involvement in treatment decision-making: “active” (where the patient themselves prefer to decide on which would be the most appropriate treatment option for themselves); “collaborative/shared” (where the patient and the doctor jointly decided on the most appropriate treatment option); “passive” (where the patient prefer to leave decision on the most appropriate treatment option to the doctor). Associations with the following variables were investigated: performance status, comorbidity (“Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation”-“Comorbidity index”), living arrangements, age, gender, education, cultural group, IPSS risk category, evolution from lower IPSS risk scores and patient-reported symptoms (using symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30). Descriptive statistics were used and Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskall-Wallis test and Fisher's exact test were used as appropriate to test statistical significance of performed comparisons.
Results:
Study population included overall 121 patients (38% female and 62% male). Mean age of patients was 69 years (min:31.3 max: 87.9) and 80% were diagnosed with IPSS int-2 risk score and 20% with IPSS high risk score. Twenty-six percent evolved from lower IPSS risk scores, while 74% were newly diagnosed with higher-risk. Forty-nine percent favored a passive while only 13% preferred an active role in treatment decision-making; the remaining 38% favored a collaborative/shared decision-making approach. Investigation of factors possibly related to preferred roles, found that passive role was significantly associated with lower education levels (P=.04). Among lower educated patients, 62.5% preferred a passive role compared with only 5% preferring an active role. When investigating relationships with patient-reported symptoms, a general trend for patients preferring a passive role, showing worse outcomes, was also evident. Higher symptom mean scores were found for passive vs. active role groups, being respectively: 46 (sd.26.6) vs. 37 (sd.29.9) for fatigue; 20 (sd.31.8) vs. 2 (sd.8.6) for constipation; 34 (sd.33) vs. 24 (sd.29.5) for dyspnea. Exploratory analysis showed that overall mean symptom score was statistically significant worse in patients preferring a passive role vs. those preferring an active role (P=.01). While other trends of associations were noted, these were not statistically significant.
Conclusion:
This is the first evidence suggesting that a consistent percentage of high-risk MDS patients prefer a passive role when discussing treatment options with their treating physicians at the time of diagnosis. There is also an indication that these patients are those with lower education levels and presenting with a higher symptom burden. Results need to be confirmed in a larger sample size.
Disclosures:
No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Diminished capacities to make treatment decision for COVID-19 vaccination in schizophrenia
