探讨转移性乳腺癌的决策、患者治疗偏好和关注点:一项随机对照试验中医学遭遇的发现

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Emma K Hendrix, Nicole L Henderson, Garrett A Bourne, Courtney P Williams, Stacey A Ingram, Gabrielle B Rocque
{"title":"探讨转移性乳腺癌的决策、患者治疗偏好和关注点:一项随机对照试验中医学遭遇的发现","authors":"Emma K Hendrix, Nicole L Henderson, Garrett A Bourne, Courtney P Williams, Stacey A Ingram, Gabrielle B Rocque","doi":"10.1089/jpm.2024.0362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Shared decision making (SDM) is critical for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), as they face complex treatment decisions involving trade-offs between efficacy, side effects, and quality of life. However, there is limited understanding of how these decision-making conversations unfold in clinical practice and how patient preferences are integrated. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This qualitative study analyzed audio-recorded treatment decision-making encounters from a larger randomized controlled trial conducted between December 2018 and June 2022 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The trial evaluated the impact of a SDM intervention incorporating patient preferences into treatment plannings. Audio recordings were transcribed, time-stamped, and analyzed to determine total encounter time, speaker contributions, and encounter components. The qualitative data were also coded using NVivo to identify key themes related to patient preferences/concerns. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 51 encounters were analyzed, with 51% of participants in the control arm and 49% in the intervention arm. Encounters ranged from 9 to 59 minutes, with an average length of 29 minutes. Oncologist speaking time averaged 18 minutes, while patient speaking time averaged 6 minutes. The majority of the time (62%) was devoted to treatment discussions, followed by relationship building (8%), results review (8%), and symptom review (7%). Prognostic discussions occurred in only 4% of encounter time. Patients expressed treatment concerns related to continuing daily activities, clinical trials, side effects, cost, and logistics, with no significant differences between intervention and control groups. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> While minor differences were observed between the control and intervention groups, overall, this study provides an in-depth exploration of the nature of decision-making encounters in MBC. Treatment decision-making encounters for women with MBC primarily focused on treatment options, with limited attention to prognosis and broader patient preferences. More comprehensive approaches are needed to effectively integrate patient values into clinical discussions. <b>IRB Statement:</b> This study was approved by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB-300002283).</p>","PeriodicalId":16656,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Decision-Making and Patient Treatment Preferences and Concerns in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Findings from Medical Encounters in a Randomized Control Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Emma K Hendrix, Nicole L Henderson, Garrett A Bourne, Courtney P Williams, Stacey A Ingram, Gabrielle B Rocque\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/jpm.2024.0362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Shared decision making (SDM) is critical for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), as they face complex treatment decisions involving trade-offs between efficacy, side effects, and quality of life. However, there is limited understanding of how these decision-making conversations unfold in clinical practice and how patient preferences are integrated. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This qualitative study analyzed audio-recorded treatment decision-making encounters from a larger randomized controlled trial conducted between December 2018 and June 2022 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The trial evaluated the impact of a SDM intervention incorporating patient preferences into treatment plannings. Audio recordings were transcribed, time-stamped, and analyzed to determine total encounter time, speaker contributions, and encounter components. The qualitative data were also coded using NVivo to identify key themes related to patient preferences/concerns. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 51 encounters were analyzed, with 51% of participants in the control arm and 49% in the intervention arm. Encounters ranged from 9 to 59 minutes, with an average length of 29 minutes. Oncologist speaking time averaged 18 minutes, while patient speaking time averaged 6 minutes. The majority of the time (62%) was devoted to treatment discussions, followed by relationship building (8%), results review (8%), and symptom review (7%). Prognostic discussions occurred in only 4% of encounter time. Patients expressed treatment concerns related to continuing daily activities, clinical trials, side effects, cost, and logistics, with no significant differences between intervention and control groups. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> While minor differences were observed between the control and intervention groups, overall, this study provides an in-depth exploration of the nature of decision-making encounters in MBC. Treatment decision-making encounters for women with MBC primarily focused on treatment options, with limited attention to prognosis and broader patient preferences. More comprehensive approaches are needed to effectively integrate patient values into clinical discussions. <b>IRB Statement:</b> This study was approved by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB-300002283).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0362\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0362","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

摘要

背景:共同决策(SDM)对转移性乳腺癌(MBC)患者至关重要,因为她们面临复杂的治疗决策,涉及疗效、副作用和生活质量之间的权衡。然而,对这些决策对话如何在临床实践中展开以及如何整合患者偏好的理解有限。方法:本定性研究分析了2018年12月至2022年6月在阿拉巴马大学伯明翰分校进行的一项大型随机对照试验的录音治疗决策。该试验评估了将患者偏好纳入治疗计划的SDM干预的影响。录音经过转录、时间戳和分析,以确定总相遇时间、演讲者贡献和相遇成分。定性数据也使用NVivo编码,以确定与患者偏好/关注点相关的关键主题。结果:共分析了51例遭遇,51%的参与者在对照组,49%的参与者在干预组。接触时间从9分钟到59分钟不等,平均时长为29分钟。肿瘤医生的平均发言时间为18分钟,而患者的平均发言时间为6分钟。大部分时间(62%)用于治疗讨论,其次是建立关系(8%)、结果回顾(8%)和症状回顾(7%)。预后讨论仅占就诊时间的4%。患者表达了与持续日常活动、临床试验、副作用、费用和后勤相关的治疗担忧,干预组和对照组之间无显著差异。结论:虽然对照组和干预组之间存在微小差异,但总体而言,本研究对MBC中决策遭遇的本质进行了深入探索。女性MBC患者的治疗决策主要集中在治疗方案上,对预后和更广泛的患者偏好关注有限。需要更全面的方法来有效地将患者价值纳入临床讨论。IRB声明:本研究已获得阿拉巴马大学伯明翰机构审查委员会(IRB-300002283)的批准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Decision-Making and Patient Treatment Preferences and Concerns in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Findings from Medical Encounters in a Randomized Control Trial.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is critical for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), as they face complex treatment decisions involving trade-offs between efficacy, side effects, and quality of life. However, there is limited understanding of how these decision-making conversations unfold in clinical practice and how patient preferences are integrated. Methods: This qualitative study analyzed audio-recorded treatment decision-making encounters from a larger randomized controlled trial conducted between December 2018 and June 2022 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The trial evaluated the impact of a SDM intervention incorporating patient preferences into treatment plannings. Audio recordings were transcribed, time-stamped, and analyzed to determine total encounter time, speaker contributions, and encounter components. The qualitative data were also coded using NVivo to identify key themes related to patient preferences/concerns. Results: A total of 51 encounters were analyzed, with 51% of participants in the control arm and 49% in the intervention arm. Encounters ranged from 9 to 59 minutes, with an average length of 29 minutes. Oncologist speaking time averaged 18 minutes, while patient speaking time averaged 6 minutes. The majority of the time (62%) was devoted to treatment discussions, followed by relationship building (8%), results review (8%), and symptom review (7%). Prognostic discussions occurred in only 4% of encounter time. Patients expressed treatment concerns related to continuing daily activities, clinical trials, side effects, cost, and logistics, with no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Conclusions: While minor differences were observed between the control and intervention groups, overall, this study provides an in-depth exploration of the nature of decision-making encounters in MBC. Treatment decision-making encounters for women with MBC primarily focused on treatment options, with limited attention to prognosis and broader patient preferences. More comprehensive approaches are needed to effectively integrate patient values into clinical discussions. IRB Statement: This study was approved by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB-300002283).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of palliative medicine
Journal of palliative medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Palliative Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed journal covering medical, psychosocial, policy, and legal issues in end-of-life care and relief of suffering for patients with intractable pain. The Journal presents essential information for professionals in hospice/palliative medicine, focusing on improving quality of life for patients and their families, and the latest developments in drug and non-drug treatments. The companion biweekly eNewsletter, Briefings in Palliative Medicine, delivers the latest breaking news and information to keep clinicians and health care providers continuously updated.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信