The relationship between smoking and quality of life in advanced lung cancer patients: a prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer, and continued smoking may compromise treatment efficacy and quality of life (health-related quality of life (HRQoL)) in patients with advanced lung cancer. Our aims were to determine (i) preference for treatments which promote quality over length of life depending on smoking status, (ii) the relationship between HRQoL and smoking status at diagnosis (T1), after controlling for demographic and clinical variables, and (iii) changes in HRQoL 6 months after diagnosis (T2) depending on smoking status. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-six patients with advanced lung cancer were given questionnaires to assess HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), time-trade-off for life quality versus quantity (QQQ) and smoking history (current, former or never smoker) at diagnosis (T1) and 6 months later (T2). Medical data were extracted from case records. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 202 (68.2 %) patients at T1 and 114 (53.3 %) at T2. Patients favoured treatments that would enhance quality of life over increased longevity. Those who continued smoking after diagnosis reported worse HRQoL than former smokers or those who never smoked. Smoking status was a significant independent predictor of coughing in T1 (worse in smokers) and cognitive functioning in T2 (better in never smokers). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking by patients with advanced lung cancer is associated with worse symptoms on diagnosis and poorer HRQoL for those who continue smoking. The results have implications to help staff explain the consequences of smoking to patients

Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: Differences within and between groups using three valuation methods

Background: Decision-making can be based on treatment preferences of the patient, the doctor, or by guidelines based on lay people's preferences. We compared valuations assigned by three groups: patients, obstetrical care professionals, and laypersons, for health states involving both mother and (unborn) child. Our aim was to compare the valuations of different groups using different valuation methods and complex obstetric health outcome vignettes that involve both maternal and neonatal ou

Are publicly available internet resources enabling women to make informed fertility preservation decisions before starting cancer treatment: an environmental scan?

Background To identify publicly available internet resources and assess their likelihood to support women making informed decisions about, and between, fertility preservation procedures before starting their cancer treatment. Methods A survey of publically available internet resources utilising an environmental scan method. Inclusion criteria were applied to hits from searches of three data sources (November 2015; repeated June 2017): Google (Chrome) for patient resources; repositories for clinical guidelines and projects; distribution email lists to contact patient decision aid experts. The Data Extraction Sheet applied to eligible resources elicited: resource characteristics; informed and shared decision making components; engagement health services. Results Four thousand eight hundred fifty one records were identified; 24 patient resources and 0 clinical guidelines met scan inclusion criteria. Most resources aimed to inform women with cancer about fertility preservation procedures and infertility treatment options, but not decision making between options. There was a lack of consistency about how health conditions, decision problems and treatment options were described, and resources were difficult to understand. Conclusions Unless developed as part of a patient decision aid project, resources did not include components to support proactively women’s fertility preservation decisions. Current guidelines help people deliver information relevant to treatment options within a single disease pathway; we identified five additional components for patient decision aid checklists to support more effectively people’s treatment decision making across health pathways, linking current with future health problems

Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient – A systematic review

Introduction: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient–clinician collaboration to make care fit. Methods: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real-life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. Results: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions ‘Patient-clinician collaboration: content’ (N = 396, 32%) and ‘Patient-clinician collaboration: manner’ (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to ‘Ongoing and iterative process’ (N = 22, 2%) and in ‘Minimally disruptive of patient lives’ (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to ‘Informing’ (N = 308, 25%) and ‘Exploring’ (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to ‘Following up’, ‘Comforting’ and ‘Praising’ (each N = 3, 0.2%). Discussion: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. Patient Contribution: Patients and caregivers from the ‘Making care fit Collaborative’ were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient–clinician collaboration

Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients' and oncologists' preferences

Preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) in resectable rectal cancer improves local control but increases probability of faecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Consensus was reached in 2001 in the Netherlands on a guideline advising PRT to new patients. Purpose was to assess at what benefit oncologists and rectal cancer patients prefer PRT followed by surgery to surgery alone, and how oncologists and patients value various treatment outcomes. Sixty-six disease-free patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, medical) were interviewed. Minimally desired benefit from PRT (local control) was assessed using the Treatment Tradeoff Method. Importance of survival, local control, faecal incontinence, and sexual dysfunction in determining treatment outcome preferences was assessed using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. The range of required benefit from PRT varied widely within participant groups. Seventeen percent of patients would choose PRT at a 0% benefit; 11% would not choose PRT for the maximum benefit of 11%. Mean minimally desired benefit excluding these two groups was 4%. For oncologists, the required benefit was 5%. Also, how strongly participants valued treatment outcomes varied widely within groups. Of the four outcomes, participants considered incontinence most often as most important. Relative treatment outcome importance differed between specialties. Patients considered sexual functioning more important than oncologists. Large differences in treatment preferences exist between individual patients and oncologists. Oncologists should adequately inform their patients about the risks and benefits of PRT, and elicit patient preferences regarding treatment outcomes

Supportive and symptomatic management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

The main aims in the care of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are to minimize morbidity and maximize quality of life. Although no cure exists for ALS, supportive and symptomatic care provided by a specialist multidisciplinary team can improve survival. The basis for supportive management is shifting from expert consensus guidelines towards an evidence-based approach, which encourages the use of effective treatments and could reduce the risk of harm caused by ineffective or unsafe interventions. For example, respiratory support using noninvasive ventilation has been demonstrated to improve survival and quality of life, whereas evidence supporting other respiratory interventions is insufficient. Increasing evidence implicates a causal role for metabolic dysfunction in ALS, suggesting that optimizing nutrition could improve quality of life and survival. The high incidence of cognitive dysfunction and its impact on prognosis is increasingly recognized, although evidence for effective treatments is lacking. A variety of strategies are used to manage the other physical and psychological symptoms, the majority of which have yet to be thoroughly evaluated. The need for specialist palliative care throughout the disease is increasingly recognized. This Review describes the current approaches to symptomatic and supportive care in ALS and outlines the current guidance and evidence for these strategies

Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility analyses are frequently conducted to compare treatments for hepatitis C, which are often associated with complex regimens and serious adverse events. Thus, the purpose of this study was to estimate the utility associated with treatment administration and adverse events of hepatitis C treatments. DESIGN: Health states were drafted based on literature review and clinician interviews. General population participants in the UK valued the health states in time trade-off (TTO) interviews with 10- and 1-year time horizons. The 14 health states described hepatitis C with variations in treatment regimen and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 182 participants completed interviews (50 % female; mean age = 39.3 years). Utilities for health states describing treatment regimens without injections ranged from 0.80 (1 tablet) to 0.79 (7 tablets). Utilities for health states describing oral plus injectable regimens were 0.77 (7 tablets), 0.75 (12 tablets), and 0.71 (18 tablets). Addition of a weekly injection had a disutility of −0.02. A requirement to take medication with fatty food had a disutility of −0.04. Adverse events were associated with substantial disutilities: mild anemia, −0.12; severe anemia, −0.32; flu-like symptoms, −0.21; mild rash, −0.13; severe rash, −0.48; depression, −0.47. One-year TTO scores were similar to these 10-year values. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events and greater treatment regimen complexity were associated with lower utility scores, suggesting a perceived decrease in quality of life beyond the impact of hepatitis C. The resulting utilities may be used in models estimating and comparing the value of treatments for hepatitis C. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0649-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients' utilities and treatment preferences

To assess patients' utilities for health state outcomes after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer and to investigate the patients' treatment preferences for either procedure. The study group consisted of 48 patients who had undergone either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. In an interview they were presented with eight possible health states following oesophagectomy. Visual Analogue Scale and standard gamble techniques were used to measure utilities. Treatment preference for either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy was assessed. Highest scores were found for the patients' own current health state (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.77; standard gamble: 0.97). Lowest scores were elicited for the health state ‘irresectable tumour’ (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.13; standard gamble: 0.34). The Visual Analogue Scale method produced lower estimates (P<0.001) than the standard gamble method for all health states. Most patient characteristics and clinical factors did not correlate with the utilities. Ninety-five per cent of patients who underwent a transthoracic procedure and 52% of patients who underwent a transhiatal resection would prefer the transthoracic treatment. No significant associations between any patient characteristics or clinical characteristics and treatment preference were found. Utilities after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy were robust because they generally did not vary by patient or clinical characteristics. Overall, most patients preferred the transthoracic procedure

Tools and Strategies to Integrate Multi-Domain Information for Personalized Decision-Making in Oncological Care Pathways: A Scoping Review

Thanee M Uittenhout,1 Jesse Jansen,1 Kon-Siong Jie,2 Lieke Welling,3 Barbara L van Leeuwen,4 Leti van Bodegom-Vos,5 Anne M Stiggelbout,5,6 Trudy van der Weijden,1 IPTO Consortium: the scientific members of the IPTO ConsortiumA. Koch, F.M. van Nuenen, H. van der Wal-Huisman, L.L. van Baalen, M.J. Nogarede, S. Festen, V.C. Hanewinkel On behalf of the IPTO Consortium1Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML) Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 2Department of Internal Medicine, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard, the Netherlands; 3Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 4Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 5Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; 6Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Thanee M Uittenhout, Email [email protected]: There is a growing interest in personalized decision-making in oncology. According to the Integrated Oncological Decision-Making Model (IODM), decisions should be based on information from three domains: (1) medical technical information, (2) patients’ general health status and (3) patients’ preferences and goals. Little is known about what kind of tool/strategy is used to collect the information, by whom this is collected (nurse, clinician) when this is collected (moment in the care pathway), and how this information should be collected and integrated within decision-making in oncological care pathways, and what its impact is.Methods: We searched PUBMED, Embase and Web of Science in October 2023 for studies looking at tools to collect and integrate information from the three domains of the IODM. We extracted data on the content and implementation of these tools, and on decision and patient outcomes.Results: The search yielded 2576 publications, of which only seven studies described collection of information from all three domains (inclusion criteria). In the seven included studies, information on the three domains was collected through dialogue, questionnaires, and assessments (what) by a nurse (2 out of 7 studies) or by other members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team (by whom) (5 out of 7 studies). Members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team subsequently integrated the information (5 out 7 studies) during their meeting (when), with patients and family attending this meeting in 2 studies (how). In terms of decision outcomes, 5 out of 7 studies compared the treatment recommendations before and after implementation of the tools, showing a modification of the treatment plan in 3% to 53% of cases. The limited data on patient outcomes suggest positive effects on well-being and fewer complications (3 out of 7 studies).Conclusion: The seven studies identified that integrated information from the three IODM domains into treatment decision-making lacked comprehensive information regarding the strategies, process, timing and individuals involved in implementing the tools. Nevertheless, the few studies that looked at patient outcomes showed promising findings.Keywords: person centred care, patient centred care, patient preferences, treatment decision-making, multi-disciplinary team, oncolog