IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v52y2001i12p1865-1878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sharing decisions in cancer care

Author

Listed:
  • Gattellari, Melina
  • Butow, Phyllis N.
  • Tattersall, Martin H. N.

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that the majority of cancer patients fail to achieve their desired level of participation during treatment decision making. However, it is unclear whether this failure affects patient well-being and satisfaction. Furthermore, whilst shared decision making is currently espoused as the preferred model for doctor-patient relations, little empirical evidence exists showing it has beneficial effects for patients. We aimed to evaluate the impact of shared decision making and the achievement of preferred role on patient anxiety, recall of information, and satisfaction. Patients with cancer indicated their preferred level of participation in decision making and preferences for information and emotional support prior to their initial consultation with an oncologist. Anxiety was assessed prior to and immediately after the consultation and recall seven days after the consultation. Anxiety was reassessed at two-weeks post-consultation at which time patients also reported their satisfaction with the consultation and perceived role of participation in treatment decision making. Satisfaction with the information and emotional support received was also evaluated. Of the 233 patients available for analysis, a match between preferred and perceived roles was found for over one-third of patients (34%), with 29% more active and 37% less involved in decision making than preferred. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that role mismatch significantly predicted changes in anxiety levels from pre to immediate post-consultation (p=0.03). However, irrespective of preferred role in decision making, perceived role, but not role mismatch, significantly and independently predicted satisfaction with both the consultation (p=0.0005) and the amount of information and emotional support received from the doctor (p=0.004). Patients who reported a shared role in decision making were most satisfied with the consultation and with the information about treatment and emotional support received. Those who reported that either themselves or the doctor exclusively made the decision were least satisfied. These findings underscore the pre-eminence of the shared decision making model and suggest that encouraging participation may be the safest standard approach. Doctor -- as well as patient -- based interventions are required to promote patient participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Gattellari, Melina & Butow, Phyllis N. & Tattersall, Martin H. N., 2001. "Sharing decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1878, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:52:y:2001:i:12:p:1865-1878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00303-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gaston, Christine M. & Mitchell, Geoffrey, 2005. "Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2252-2264, November.
    2. Coleman-Brueckheimer, Kate & Spitzer, Joseph & Koffman, Jonathan, 2009. "Involvement of Rabbinic and communal authorities in decision-making by haredi Jews in the UK with breast cancer: An interpretative phenomenological analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 323-333, January.
    3. O' Donnell, Máire & Monz, Brigitta & Hunskaar, Steinar, 2007. "General preferences for involvement in treatment decision making among European women with urinary incontinence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(9), pages 1914-1924, May.
    4. Albada, Akke & Ausems, Margreet G.E.M. & van Dulmen, Sandra, 2014. "Counselee participation in follow-up breast cancer genetic counselling visits and associations with achievement of the preferred role, cognitive outcomes, risk perception alignment and perceived perso," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 178-186.
    5. Fraser, Suzanne & Fomiatti, Renae & Moore, David & Seear, Kate & Aitken, Campbell, 2020. "Is another relationship possible? Connoisseurship and the doctor–patient relationship for men who consume performance and image-enhancing drugs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    7. Semra Ozdemir & Yubing Tian & Chetna Malhotra & Richard Harding & Gerald Choon Huat Koh & Nesaretnam Barr Kumarakulasinghe & Lai Heng Lee & Ssu Wynn Mon & Eric Finkelstein, 2021. "Discordance Between Advanced Cancer Patients’ Perceived and Preferred Roles in Decision Making and its Association with Psychological Distress and Perceived Quality of Care," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(5), pages 581-589, September.
    8. Mollie Rose Canzona & Deborah Love & Rolland Barrett & Joanne Henley & Sara Bridges & Adam Koontz & Sharon Nelson & Serena Daya, 2018. "“Operating in the dark”: Nurses’ attempts to help patients and families manage the transition from oncology to comfort care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(21-22), pages 4158-4167, November.
    9. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    10. Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz & Jagienka Rześny-Cieplińska & Andrzej Jezierski, 2020. "Assessing Resources Management for Sharing Economy in Urban Logistics," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-30, September.
    11. Marla L. Clayman & Carma L. Bylund & Betty Chewning & Gregory Makoul, 2016. "The Impact of Patient Participation in Health Decisions Within Medical Encounters," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 427-452, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:52:y:2001:i:12:p:1865-1878. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.