Association between Trust and Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experience in Prostate Cancer Patients.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sumedha Chhatre, Joseph J Gallo, Thomas Guzzo, Knashawn H Morales, Neha Vapiwala, S Bruce Malkowicz, Ravishankar Jayadevappa
{"title":"Association between Trust and Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experience in Prostate Cancer Patients.","authors":"Sumedha Chhatre, Joseph J Gallo, Thomas Guzzo, Knashawn H Morales, Neha Vapiwala, S Bruce Malkowicz, Ravishankar Jayadevappa","doi":"10.1177/0272989X261493550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the association between patient-physician trust, treatment choice, patient-reported outcomes, and patient-reported experiences among patients with localized prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial among patients with localized prostate cancer. Trust was measured at baseline, prior to treatment, using the Patient Trust-Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (PTWF). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo. Treatments were robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and active surveillance. The primary treatment outcome was receipt of active treatment (surgery or radiation therapy) versus active surveillance. Multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed-effects models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, employment, insurance, prostate cancer risk group, intervention assignment, and study site. Sensitivity analyses modeling trust as a continuous variable yielded findings that were materially consistent with the primary analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The high-trust group had higher odds of receiving active treatment than the low-trust group did (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-2.87; <i>P</i> = 0.013). Higher baseline trust was also consistently associated with better physical and mental health-related quality of life and higher satisfaction with care and treatment decision making across follow-up assessments through 24 mo. Sensitivity analyses using trust as a continuous measure produced similar findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Higher patient-physician trust was independently associated with treatment choice, patient-reported outcomes, and patient-reported experience. These findings underscore the importance of patient-physician trust as a component of patient-centered cancer care and shared decision making. Future studies should evaluate interventions designed to strengthen trust and improve patient-centered outcomes across diverse clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X261493550"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X261493550","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the association between patient-physician trust, treatment choice, patient-reported outcomes, and patient-reported experiences among patients with localized prostate cancer.

Materials and methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial among patients with localized prostate cancer. Trust was measured at baseline, prior to treatment, using the Patient Trust-Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (PTWF). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo. Treatments were robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, and active surveillance. The primary treatment outcome was receipt of active treatment (surgery or radiation therapy) versus active surveillance. Multivariable logistic regression and linear mixed-effects models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, employment, insurance, prostate cancer risk group, intervention assignment, and study site. Sensitivity analyses modeling trust as a continuous variable yielded findings that were materially consistent with the primary analyses.

Results: The high-trust group had higher odds of receiving active treatment than the low-trust group did (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14-2.87; P = 0.013). Higher baseline trust was also consistently associated with better physical and mental health-related quality of life and higher satisfaction with care and treatment decision making across follow-up assessments through 24 mo. Sensitivity analyses using trust as a continuous measure produced similar findings.

Conclusions: Higher patient-physician trust was independently associated with treatment choice, patient-reported outcomes, and patient-reported experience. These findings underscore the importance of patient-physician trust as a component of patient-centered cancer care and shared decision making. Future studies should evaluate interventions designed to strengthen trust and improve patient-centered outcomes across diverse clinical settings.

前列腺癌患者的信任与患者报告的结果和经验之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书