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

Communication about genetic testing with breast and ovarian cancer patients: a scoping review

© 2018, The Author(s). Genetic testing of patients with cancer is increasingly offered to guide management, resulting in a growing need for oncology health professionals to communicate genetics information and facilitate informed decision-making in a short time frame. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise what is known about health professionals’ communication about genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with cancer patients. Four databases were systematically searched using a recognised scoping review method. Areas and types of research were mapped and a narrative synthesis of the findings was undertaken. Twenty-nine papers from 25 studies were included. Studies were identified about (i) information needs, (ii) process and content of genetic counselling, (iii) cognitive and emotional impact, including risk perception and recall, understanding and interpretation of genetic test results, and anxiety and distress, (iv) patients’ experiences, (v) communication shortly after diagnosis and (vi) alternatives to face-to-face genetic counselling. Patients’ need for cancer-focused, personalised information is not always met by genetic counselling. Genetic counselling tends to focus on biomedical information at the expense of psychological support. For most patients, knowledge is increased and anxiety is not raised by pre-test communication. However, some patients experience anxiety and distress when results are disclosed, particularly those tested shortly after diagnosis who are unprepared or unsupported. For many patients, pre-test communication by methods other than face-to-face genetic counselling is acceptable. Research is needed to identify patients who may benefit from genetic counselling and support and to investigate communication about hereditary breast and ovarian cancer by oncology health professionals

Permanence of the information given during oncogenetic counseling to persons at familial risk of breast/ovarian and/or colon cancer

How long counselees retain the information given during their genetic consultation is of major importance. To address this issue, we conducted a survey among the 3500 families that have been offered genetic counseling at our Center since 1988. In August 2007, we mailed a questionnaire to a representative subset of 579 persons belonging to breast/ovarian or colon cancer families seen in the last 10 years, either carrying an identified mutation or not. Targeted topics included the meaning of hereditary predisposition, the medical prevention related to the familial risk, the steps to undertake for a new family member to enter the genetic testing program and general knowledge of hereditary predisposition to cancer. A total of 91 randomized non-respondents were sent a second, more inciting letter, in order to assess any non-response bias. Overall, 337 questionnaires were collected: response rate was 58%. Standardized average knowledge was 7.28±1.52 of 10. Scores were lowest concerning medical prevention. The level of knowledge decreased with age (P<10−6), but increased with educational level (P<10−5) and mutation status (P=0.01). Surprisingly, no erosion of patients' knowledge over the time was observed (P=0.41). Among persons at hereditary risk of colon cancer, the level of knowledge tended to improve with time, in contrast to the breast/ovarian group (P=0.017). Among persons with a familial risk of breast/ovarian or colon cancer, a renewal of oncogenetic counseling does not seem necessary to maintain the level of specific knowledge. Measures to help patients follow their medical prevention, as organizing or checking their medical examinations, seem indicated

A discrete choice experiment of preferences for genetic counselling among Jewish women seeking cancer genetics services

To determine which aspects of breast cancer genetic counselling are important to Ashkenazi Jewish women, a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants consisted of 339 Australian Ashkenazi Jewish women who provided a blood sample for research used to test for Ashkenazi Jewish ancestral mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and were offered their genetic test result through a cancer genetics service. Main outcome measures were women's preferences for, and trade-offs between, the genetic counselling aspects of providing cancer, gene, and risk information (information); giving advice about cancer surveillance (surveillance); preparing for genetic testing (preparation); and, assistance with decision-making (direction). Respondents most valued information, about twice as much as advice about surveillance, four times as much as preparation for testing, and nine times as much as assistance with decision-making, which was least valued. Women's preferences were consistent with the major goals of genetic counselling, which include providing information and surveillance advice, and avoiding direction by facilitating autonomous decision-making. There were differences between the women in which aspects they most favoured, suggesting that counselling that elicits and responds to clients' preferences is more likely to meet clients' needs

A tool to balance benefit and harm when deciding about adjuvant therapy

Adjuvant therapy aims to prevent outgrowth of residual disease but can induce serious side effects. Weighing conflicting treatment effects and communicating this information with patients is not elementary. This study presents a scheme balancing benefit and harm of adjuvant therapy vs no adjuvant therapy. It is illustrated by the available evidence on adjuvant pelvic external beam radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate-risk stage I endometrial carcinoma patients. The scheme comprises five outcome possibilities of adjuvant therapy: patients who benefit from adjuvant therapy (some at the cost of complications) vs those who neither benefit nor contract complications, those who do not benefit but contract severe complications, or those who die. Using absolute risk differences, a fictive cohort of 1000 patients receiving adjuvant RT is categorised. Three large randomised clinical trials were included. Recurrences will be prevented by adjuvant RT in 60 patients, a majority of 908 patients will neither benefit nor suffer severe radiation-induced harm but 28 patients will suffer severe complications due to adjuvant RT and an expected four patients will die. This scheme readily summarises the different possible treatment outcomes and can be of practical value for clinicians and patients in decision making about adjuvant therapies

Behavioral and psychosocial effects of rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients: Design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been estimated that between 5% and 10% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have a hereditary form of the disease, primarily caused by a <it>BRCA1 </it>or <it>BRCA2 </it>gene mutation. Such women have an increased risk of developing a new primary breast and/or ovarian tumor, and may therefore opt for preventive surgery (e.g., bilateral mastectomy, oophorectomy). It is common practice to offer high-risk patients genetic counseling and DNA testing after their primary treatment, with genetic test results being available within 4-6 months. However, some non-commercial laboratories can currently generate test results within 3 to 6 weeks, and thus make it possible to provide <it>rapid </it>genetic counseling and testing (RGCT) prior to primary treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of RGCT on treatment decisions and on psychosocial health.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In this randomized controlled trial, 255 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients with at least a 10% risk of carrying a <it>BRCA </it>gene mutation are being recruited from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to either a RGCT intervention group (the offer of RGCT directly following diagnosis with tests results available before surgical treatment) or to a usual care control group. The primary behavioral outcome is the uptake of direct bilateral mastectomy or delayed prophylactic contralateral mastectomy. Psychosocial outcomes include cancer risk perception, cancer-related worry and distress, health-related quality of life, decisional satisfaction and the perceived need for and use of additional decisional counseling and psychosocial support. Data are collected via medical chart audits and self-report questionnaires administered prior to randomization, and at 6 month and at 12 month follow-up.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide essential information on the impact of RGCT on the choice of primary surgical treatment among women with breast cancer with an increased risk of hereditary cancer. This study will also provide data on the psychosocial consequences of RGCT and of risk-reducing behavior.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1493) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00783822).</p

Secondary fibrosarcoma of the brain stem treated with cyclophosphamide and Imatinib

Radiation-induced midbrain fibrosarcoma is a rare, highly aggressive tumor, which is associated with poor prognosis. We present the case of a 48-year old man with brainstem fibrosarcoma 20 years following radiation therapy received for a pituitary tumor. We discuss this case in the context of the diagnostic criteria for these tumors, and previous reports of secondary and primary sarcomas of the central nervous system

Supporting patients with low health literacy: what role do radiation therapists play?

Purpose: Health literacy plays a key role in a patient’s ability to use health information and services, and can affect health outcomes. This study aimed to explore radiation therapists’ perspectives on how they support people with lower health literacy who are undergoing radiotherapy. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 radiation therapists working in radiation oncology departments in New South Wales, Australia. Results: The four key themes were (1) the process of identifying a patient with low health literacy, (2) the perceived consequences of low health literacy, (3) managing and responding to the needs of different health literacy groups and (4) recommendations to address low health literacy in radiotherapy. Radiation therapists appeared to make an informal, intuitive judgment about a patient’s health literacy, using a variety of verbal and non-verbal cues as well as impromptu conversations with the multi-disciplinary team. Patients perceived to have lower health literacy were described as having greater difficulties assimilating knowledge and engaging in self-care. Although participants reported communicating to patients at a basic level initially, they subsequently tailored their communication to match a patient’s health literacy. Strategies reported to communicate to low health literacy groups ranged from using lay language with minimal medical terminology, using visual aids (photos), using analogies, reiterating information and asking family members with higher literacy to attend consultations. Conclusion: A more structured approach to supporting patients with low health literacy and integrating health literacy training in radiation oncology departments may help to minimise the adverse outcomes typically experienced by this population