IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i1p7-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Questions Do Patients with Curable Prostate Cancer Want Answered?

Author

Listed:
  • Deb Feldman-Stewart
  • Michael D. Brundage
  • Charles Hayter
  • Patti Groome
  • J. Curtis Nickel
  • Heather Downes
  • William J. Mackillop

Abstract

Purpose. To determine the questions that recently diagnosed early-stage prostate cancer patients think should be addressed with patients like themselves. Study population. 56 patients diagnosed as having early-stage prostate cancer within the previous year. Methods. Surveys distributed to the patients included 93 questions that might be considered important. Respondents judged the importance (essential / desired / no opinion / avoid) of addressing each question, and indicated why those "essential" or "desired" were important. Results. 38 patients (68%) responded. Agreement on question importance, overall, was rather poor (mean 41.6%, kappa 0.17). There were, however, 20 questions that at least 67% of the respondents agreed were essential to address and 12 that they agreed were not essential. No question was relevant to the treatment decisions of more than 50% of respondents, but 91 questions were relevant to at least one respondent's decision. Conclusions. Although there was enough agreement to define a core set of questions that should be addressed with most patients, each of the remaining questions was also considered essential to some people. The core set, therefore, would not be adequate to satisfy any one patient's essential information needs. Whereas most questions would be needed to cover all patients' decision needs, only some are needed for any given patient. Such variability in information needs means that the subjective standard is the only viable legal standard for judging the adequacy of provision of information for the treatment decision. Key words: information needs; informed consent; prostate cancer; patient participation; patient education. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:7-19)

Suggested Citation

  • Deb Feldman-Stewart & Michael D. Brundage & Charles Hayter & Patti Groome & J. Curtis Nickel & Heather Downes & William J. Mackillop, 2000. "What Questions Do Patients with Curable Prostate Cancer Want Answered?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 7-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:7-19
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000102
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000102?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. Wallace, Louise M., 1986. "Informed consent to elective surgery: The 'therapeutic' value?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 29-33, January.
    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. Pieterse, Arwen H. & de Vries, Marieke & Kunneman, Marleen & Stiggelbout, Anne M. & Feldman-Stewart, Deb, 2013. "Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 156-163.
    2. Steven Zeliadt & Scott Ramsey & Arnold Potosky & Neeraj Arora & David Blough & Ingrid Oakley-Girvan & Ann Hamilton & Stephen Eeden & David Penson, 2008. "Association of Pre-Existing Symptoms with Treatment Decisions among Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Patients," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(3), pages 189-200, 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.

      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:20:y:2000:i:1:p:7-19. 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.