Shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: A qualitative observation of talk about patients’ preferences

Abstract

Background:

Particularly at the end of life, treatment decisions should be shared and incorporate patients’ preferences. This study examines elaboration and preference construction.

Aim:

To examine the values, appraisals and preferences that patients express, as well as the oncologists’ communicative behaviour that facilitates these expressions in consultations on palliative chemotherapy.

Design:

Verbatim transcripts of audio-recorded consultations (n = 60) were analysed in MAXqda10 software. Two independent coders identified and categorised patients’ preference-related utterances and oncologists’ utterances, preceding and following such expressions.

Setting/participants:

Cancer patients (n = 41) with a median life expectancy <1 year and oncologists (n = 13) meeting with them in either initial or evaluative follow-up consultations.

Results:

Most frequent were patients’ expressions of treatment preferences (65% of consultations), often the simple wish to have treatment. Expressions of underlying values (48%) and appraisals of treatment aspects (50%) were less common. Most preference-related utterances concerned single statements (59%); in 51% of the consultations, true dialogue was observed. Preference-related utterances were least common in follow-up consultations concerning stable disease or response. Preference-related fragments were patient-initiated (42%), oncologist-facilitated (28%) or oncologist-invited (30%). Oncologist responses likely to trigger more preference-related talk were showing empathy, checking and probe questioning. Likely to reduce space were providing information, personally agreeing and neutral responses.

Conclusion:

Elaboration and joint preference construction is not standard practice in consultations on palliative chemotherapy. Oncologists may benefit from realising this and training skills that support this key step of shared decision making. Also, repeated shared decision making throughout the course of palliative chemotherapy should be stimulated.

Keywords

Decision making physician–patient relations patient participation medical oncology palliative care

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Prigerson

Bao

Shah

. Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1: 778–784.

Haynes

Devereaux

Guyatt

GH.

Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. Vox Sang 2002; 83(Suppl. 1): 383–386.

Hoffman

Montori

Del Mar

The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. JAMA 2014; 312: 1295–1296.

Charles

Gafni

Whelan

Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 681–692.

De Kort

Pols

Richel

. Understanding palliative cancer chemotherapy: about shared decisions and shared trajectories. Health Care Anal 2010; 18: 164–174.

Seminar

SG.

Salzburg statement of shared decision making. BMJ 2011; 342: 1745.

Shay

Lafata

JE.

Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making 2015; 35: 114–131.

Kashaf

McGill

Does shared decision making in cancer treatment improve quality of life? A systematic literature review. Med Decis Making 2015; 35: 1037–1048.

Chewning

Bylund

Shah

. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86: 9–18.

10.

Brom

Pasman

HRW

Widdershoven

GAM

. Patients’ preferences for participation in treatment decision-making at the end of life: qualitative interviews with advanced cancer patients. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e100435.

11.

Elwyn

Frosch

Thomson

. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27: 1361–1367.

12.

Stiggelbout

Pieterse

De Haes

JC.

Shared decision making: concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns 2015; 98: 1172–1179.

13.

Rohan

MJ.

A rose by any name? The values construct. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2000; 4: 255–277.

14.

Pieterse

Henselmans

de Haes

JCJM

. Shared decision making: prostate cancer patients’ appraisal of treatment alternatives and oncologists’ eliciting and responding behavior, an explorative study. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 85: e251–e259.

15.

Feldman-Stewart

Tong

Siemens

. The impact of explicit values clarification exercises in a patient decision aid emerges after the decision is actually made: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making 2012; 32: 616–626.

16.

Feldman-Stewart

Brundage

Tishelman

A conceptual framework for patient-professional communication: an application to the cancer context. Psychooncology 2005; 14: 801–809.

17.

Voogt

van der Heide

Rietjens

. Attitudes of patients with incurable cancer toward medical treatment in the last phase of life. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 2012–2019.

18.

Kunneman

Pieterse

Stiggelbout

. Treatment preferences and involvement in treatment decision making of patients with endometrial cancer and clinicians. Br J Cancer 2014; 111: 674–679.

19.

Pieterse

Stiggelbout

Baas-Thijssen

. Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients’ and oncologists’ preferences. Br J Cancer 2007; 97: 717–724.

20.

Jansen

Kievit

Nooij

. Patients’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: is treatment worthwhile? Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 1577–1585.

21.

Davidson

Jiwa

Goldsmith

. Decisions for lung cancer chemotherapy: the influence of physician and patient factors. Support Care Cancer 2011; 19: 1261–1266.

22.

Kunneman

Baas-Thijssen

Van der Linden

. Considering patient values and treatment preferences enhances patient involvement in rectal cancer treatment decision making. Radiother Oncol. Epub ahead of print 11 September 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2015.09.005.

23.

Buiting

Rurup

Wijsbek

. Understanding provision of chemotherapy to patients with end stage cancer: qualitative interview study. BMJ 2011; 342: d1933.

24.

The

Hak

Koeter

. Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. BMJ 2000; 321: 1376–1381.

25.

De Haes

. Dilemmas in patient centeredness and shared decision making: a case for vulnerability. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 62: 291–298.

26.

De Haes

Koedoot

. Patient centered decision making in palliative cancer treatment: a world of paradoxes. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50: 43–49.

27.

O’Brien

Harris

Beckman

. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med 2014; 89: 1245–1251.

28.

Graneheim

Lundman

Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 2004; 24: 105–112.

29.

MAXqda 10. The art of text analysis. Berlin: VERBI Software Consult, Sozialforschung GmbH, 2010.

30.

Del Piccolo

de Haes

Heaven

. Development of the Verona coding definitions of emotional sequences to code health providers’ responses (VR-CoDES-P) to patient cues and concerns. Patient Educ Couns 2011; 82: 149–155.

31.

Connor

Fletcher

Salmon

The analysis of verbal interaction sequences in dyadic clinical communication: a review of methods. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 75: 169–177.

32.

Fridman

Epstein

Higgins

ET.

Appropriate use of psychology in patient-physician communication: influencing wisely. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1: 725–726.

33.

Henselmans

Smets

Van Laarhoven

HW.

Decision making about treatment for advanced cancer: influencing wisely?

JAMA Oncol 2015; 1: 1169.

34.

Stiggelbout

Van der Weijden

De Wit

MPT

. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 2012; 344: e256.

35.

Hillen

de Haes

HCJM

van Tienhoven

. All eyes on the patient: the influence of oncologists’ nonverbal communication on breast cancer patients’ trust. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 153: 161–171.

36.

Henry

Jerant

Iosif

. Analysis of threats to research validity introduced by audio recording clinic visits: selection bias, Hawthorne effect, both, or neither? Patient Educ Couns 2015; 98: 849–856.

37.

Pringle

Stewartevans

Does awareness of being video recorded affect doctors consultation behavior. Br J Gen Pract 1990; 40: 455–458.

38.

Mazer

Cameron

DeLuca

. ‘Speaking-for’ and ‘speaking-as’: pseudo-surrogacy in physician-patient-companion medical encounters about advanced cancer. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 96: 36–42.