IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i3p179-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disclosing the Uncertainty Associated with Prognostic Estimates in Breast Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen G. Engelhardt
  • Arwen H. Pieterse
  • Paul K. J. Han
  • Nanny van Duijn-Bakker
  • Frans Cluitmans
  • Ed Maartense
  • Monique M. E. M. Bos
  • Nir I. Weijl
  • Cornelis J. A. Punt
  • Patricia Quarles van Ufford-Mannesse
  • Harm Sleeboom
  • Johanneke E. A. Portielje
  • Koos J. M. van der Hoeven
  • F. J. Sherida Woei-A-Jin
  • Judith R. Kroep
  • Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes
  • Ellen M. A. Smets
  • Anne M. Stiggelbout

Abstract

Background. Treatment decision making is often guided by evidence-based probabilities, which may be presented to patients during consultations. These probabilities are intrinsically imperfect and embody 2 types of uncertainties: aleatory uncertainty arising from the unpredictability of future events and epistemic uncertainty arising from limitations in the reliability and accuracy of probability estimates. Risk communication experts have recommended disclosing uncertainty. We examined whether uncertainty was discussed during cancer consultations and whether and how patients perceived uncertainty. Methods. Consecutive patient consultations with medical oncologists discussing adjuvant treatment in early-stage breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients were interviewed after the consultation to gain insight into their perceptions of uncertainty. Results. In total, 198 patients were included by 27 oncologists. Uncertainty was disclosed in 49% (97/197) of consultations. In those 97 consultations, 23 allusions to epistemic uncertainty were made and 84 allusions to aleatory uncertainty. Overall, the allusions to the precision of the probabilities were somewhat ambiguous. Interviewed patients mainly referred to aleatory uncertainty if not prompted about epistemic uncertainty. Even when specifically asked about epistemic uncertainty, 1 in 4 utterances referred to aleatory uncertainty. When talking about epistemic uncertainty, many patients contradicted themselves. In addition, 1 in 10 patients seemed not to realize that the probabilities communicated during the consultation are imperfect. Conclusions. Uncertainty is conveyed in only half of patient consultations. When uncertainty is communicated, oncologists mainly refer to aleatory uncertainty. This is also the type of uncertainty that most patients perceive and seem comfortable discussing. Given that it is increasingly common for clinicians to discuss outcome probabilities with their patients, guidance on whether and how to best communicate uncertainty is urgently needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen G. Engelhardt & Arwen H. Pieterse & Paul K. J. Han & Nanny van Duijn-Bakker & Frans Cluitmans & Ed Maartense & Monique M. E. M. Bos & Nir I. Weijl & Cornelis J. A. Punt & Patricia Quarles van Uf, 2017. "Disclosing the Uncertainty Associated with Prognostic Estimates in Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 179-192, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:179-192
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16670639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X16670639
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X16670639?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Costa, Nathalia & Mescouto, Karime & Dillon, Miriam & Olson, Rebecca & Butler, Prudence & Forbes, Roma & Setchell, Jenny, 2022. "The ubiquity of uncertainty in low back pain care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    2. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.

    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:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:179-192. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.