IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i3p230-241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of a Shared Decision Making Program for Women Suspected to Have a Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Peep F.M. Stalmeier
  • Ivana J. Unic
  • Lia C.G. Verhoef
  • Willem A.J. Van Daal

Abstract

Background . Women suspected to have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer face the difficult choice between regular breast cancer screening and prophylactic mastec tomy. The authors developed a shared decision making program (SDMP) to support this decision. Objectives . To evaluate the SDMP in terms of practicality, beneficial effects, and patient satisfaction. Design. A one-group pretest-posttest design was used. Measures. Decision uncertainty, decision burden, subjective knowledge, and risk comprehension were assessed before and after the SDMP. Additional measures were obtained for concepts related to breast cancer concern, desire to participate in the program, satisfaction, program acceptability, and emotional reaction to the program information. Results . Seventy-two women, most of whom were awaiting the genetic test results, participated. Decision uncertainty (effect size d = 0.37) and decision bur den (d= 0.41) were reduced by the SDMP. Subjective knowledge (averaged d= 0.94) and risk comprehension were improved. The women were satisfied with the SDMP and found its rationale acceptable. Women who had strong emotional reactions to the information benefited less from the SDMP, whereas women with strong desires to participate in the decision benefited more. Conclusions . There is a need to give pa tients more information, especially about prophylactic mastectomy and among gene carriers. Beneficial effects were observed irrespective of whether genetic status was known, suggesting that information concerning treatment options should be made available as soon as DNA testing begins. The better psychological outcomes of women with stronger desires to participate may arise because the desire to participate is char acteristic of emotional stability. Key words: shared decision making; breast cancer; genetic predisposition; patient participation; patient satisfaction. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:230-241)

Suggested Citation

  • Peep F.M. Stalmeier & Ivana J. Unic & Lia C.G. Verhoef & Willem A.J. Van Daal, 1999. "Evaluation of a Shared Decision Making Program for Women Suspected to Have a Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 230-241, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:230-241
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900302
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900302?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gretchen B. Chapman & Arthur S. Elstein & Katharine Kostbade Hughes, 1995. "Effects of Patient Education on Decisions about Breast Cancer Treatments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 231-239, August.
    2. Mahler, Heike I. M. & Kulik, James A., 1990. "Preferences for health care involvement, perceived control and surgical recovery: A prospective study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 743-751, January.
    3. Taplin, S. & Anderman, C. & Grothaus, L., 1989. "Breast cancer risk and participation in mammographic screening," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(11), pages 1494-1498.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dillard, Amanda J. & Fagerlin, Angela & Cin, Sonya Dal & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2010. "Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 45-52, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hilary A. Llewellyn-Thomas & J. Ivan Williams & Linda Levy & C.D. Naylor, 1996. "Using a Trade-off Technique to Assess Patients' Treatment Preferences for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 262-272, August.
    2. Erik Lichtenberg & Rae Zimmerman, 1999. "Adverse Health Experiences, Environmental Attitudes, and Pesticide Usage Behavior of Farm Operators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 283-294, April.
    3. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    4. Oliver Ommen & Sonja Thuem & Holger Pfaff & Christian Janssen, 2011. "The relationship between social support, shared decision-making and patient’s trust in doctors: a cross-sectional survey of 2,197 inpatients using the Cologne Patient Questionnaire," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 56(3), pages 319-327, June.
    5. Talya Salz & Noel T. Brewer, 2009. "Offering Chemotherapy and Hospice Jointly: One Solution to Hospice Underuse," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 521-531, July.

    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:19:y:1999:i:3:p:230-241. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.