Beliefs and practices of patients with advanced cancer: implications for communication

The aim of this study was to investigate the beliefs that patients with advanced cancer held about the curability of their cancer, their use of alternatives to conventional medical treatment, and their need to have control over decisions about treatment. Of 149 patients who fulfilled the criteria for participation and completed a self-administered questionnaire, 45 patients (31%) believed their cancer was incurable, 61 (42%) were uncertain and 39 (27%) believed their cancer was curable. The index of need for control over treatment decisions was low in 53 patients (35.6%) and high in only 17 patients (11.4%). Committed users of alternatives to conventional medical treatments were more likely to believe that their cancer was curable (

Clarifying Values: An updated review

Background: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. Methods: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. Results: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. Conclusions: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness

Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomized clinical trials for cancer therapy

This paper reports on the reasons why patients agreed to or declined entry into randomized trials of cancer following discussions conducted by clinicians in both District General and University Hospitals. Two hundred and four patients completed a 16-item questionnaire following the consultation, of these 112 (55%) were women with breast cancer. Overall results showed that 147 (72.1%) patients accepted entry to a randomized clinical trial (RCT). The main reasons nominated for participating in a trial were that ‘others will benefit’ (23.1%) and ‘trust in the doctor’ (21.1%). One of the main reasons for declining trial entry was that patients were ‘worried about randomization’ (19.6%). There was a significantly higher acceptance rate for trials providing active treatment in every arm 98 (80.6%) compared with those trials with a no treatment arm 46 (60.5%), χ2test P = 0.003. The study outlines a number of factors that appear to influence a patient’s decision to accept or decline entry into an RCT of cancer therapy. An important factor is whether or not the trial offers active treatment in all arms of the study. Communication that promotes trust and confidence in the doctor is also a powerful motivating influence. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

A 'combined framework' approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model

Background There is a lack of practical research frameworks to guide the development of patient decision aids [PtDAs]. This paper described how a PtDA was developed using the International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) guideline and UK Medical Research Council (UKMRC) frameworks to support patients when making treatment decisions in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods This study used mixed methods to develop a PtDA for use in a UK general practice setting. A 10-member expert panel was convened to guide development and patients and clinicians were also interviewed individually using semi-structured interview guides to identify their decisional needs. Current literature was reviewed systematically to determine the best available evidence. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was used to guide the presentation of the information and value clarification exercise. An iterative draft-review-revise process by the research team and review panel was conducted until the PtDA reached content and format `saturation’. The PtDA was then pilot-tested by users in actual consultations to assess its acceptability and feasibility. The IPDAS and UKMRC frameworks were used throughout to inform the development process. Results The PANDAs PtDA was developed systematically and iteratively. Patients and clinicians highlighted the needs for information, decisional, emotional and social support, which were incorporated into the PtDA. The literature review identified gaps in high quality evidence and variations in patient outcome reporting. The PtDA comprised five components: background of the treatment options; pros and cons of each treatment option; value clarification exercise; support needs; and readiness to decide. Conclusions This study has demonstrated the feasibility of combining the IPDAS and the UKMRC frameworks for the development and evaluation of a PtDA. Future studies should test this model for developing PtDAs across different decisions and healthcare contexts

Characterising the KMP-11 and HSP-70 recombinant antigens' humoral immune response profile in chagasic patients

11 pages, 6 figures.-- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/9/186/pre pubBackground: Antigen specificity and IgG subclass could be significant in the natural history of Chagas' disease. The relationship between the different stages of human Chagas' disease and the profiles of total IgG and its subclasses were thus analysed here; they were directed against a crude T. cruzi extract and three recombinant antigens: the T. cruzi kinetoplastid membrane protein-11 (rKMP-11), an internal fragment of the T. cruzi HSP-70 protein192-433, and the entire Trypanosoma rangeli HSP-70 protein. Methods: Seventeen Brazilian acute chagasic patients, 50 Colombian chronic chagasic patients (21 indeterminate and 29 cardiopathic patients) and 30 healthy individuals were included. Total IgG and its subtypes directed against the above-mentioned recombinant antigens were determined by ELISA tests. Results: The T. cruzi KMP-11 and T. rangeli HSP-70 recombinant proteins were able to distinguish both acute from chronic chagasic patients and infected people from healthy individuals. Specific antibodies to T. cruzi crude antigen in acute patients came from IgG3 and IgG4 subclasses whereas IgG1 and IgG3 were the prevalent isotypes in indeterminate and chronic chagasic patients. By contrast, the specific prominent antibodies in all disease stages against T. cruzi KMP-11 and T. rangeli HSP-70 recombinant antigens were the IgG1 subclass.This work was supported by Colciencias Research project No. 1203-333- 18692. IDF was supported by Colciencias and the Universidad Javeriana's Young Researcher 2008 Programme (Bogotá, Colombia). MCT and MCL were supported by P06-CTS-02242 Grant from PAI (Junta de Andalucia) and RICET-RD06/0021-0014, Spain. MS received financial support from the Brazilian agency - CNPq.Peer reviewe

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

Attitudes, understanding, and concerns regarding medical research amongst Egyptians: A qualitative pilot study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medical research must involve the participation of human subjects. Knowledge of patients' perspectives and concerns with their involvement in research would enhance recruitment efforts, improve the informed consent process, and enhance the overall trust between patients and investigators. Several studies have examined the views of patients from Western countries. There is limited empirical research involving the perspectives of individuals from developing countries. The purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes of Egyptian individuals toward medical research. Such information would help clarify the type and extent of concerns regarding research participation of individuals from cultural, economic, and political backgrounds that differ from those in developed countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 Egyptian individuals recruited from the outpatient settings (public and private) at Ain Shams University in Cairo, Egypt. Interviews were taped, transcribed, and translated. Thematic analysis followed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All individuals valued the importance of medical research; however most would not participate in research that involved more than minimal risk. Individuals were comfortable with studies involving surveys and blood sampling, but many viewed drug trials as being too risky. All participants valued the concept of informed consent, as they thought that their permission to be in a research study was paramount. Many participants had discomfort with or difficulty in the understanding several research concepts: randomization, double-blind, and clinical equipoise. Trust in the physicians performing research was important in deciding to participate in clinical research. The small sample size and the selection bias associated with obtaining information from only those who agreed to participate in a research study represent limitations in this study.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Overall, individuals in our sample recognize the value of medical research and have a great deal of trust regarding medical research and their participation in research. There were, however, concerns with the level of research risks associated with several types of medical research. Many also demonstrated confusion with certain research methodologies. We recommend 1) enhanced educational efforts regarding general research concepts to enhance the validity of informed consent and 2) further survey studies in other areas of Egypt to determine the generalizability of our results.</p

Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice

Item does not contain fulltextIn palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making