This interview-based study uses phenomenology as a theoretical framework and thematic analysis to challenge existing explanatory frameworks of shared decision-making, in an exploration of women’s experiences and perceptions of shared decision-making for adjuvant treatment in breast cancer. Three themes emerged are as follows: (1) women’s desire to participate in shared decision-making, (2) the degree to which shared decision-making is perceived to be shared and (3) to what extent are women empowered within shared decision-making. Studying breast cancer patients’ subjective experiences of adjuvant treatment decision-making provides a broader perspective on patient participatory role preferences and doctor–patient power dynamics within shared decision-making for breast cancer.
AndersenMRBowenDJMoreaJet al. (2009) Involvement in decision-making and breast cancer survivor quality of life. Health Psychology28(1): 29–37.
2.
AshrafAColakogluSNguyenJTet al. (2013) Patient involvement in the decision-making process improves satisfaction and quality of life in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Journal of Surgical Research18(1): 665–670.
3.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
4.
BreitsameterC (2010) Medical decision-making and communication of risks: An ethical perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics36: 349–352.
5.
BrownRButowPWilson-GendersonMet al. (2012) Meeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: Impact on decision-related outcomes. Journal of Clinical Oncology30(8): 857–862.
6.
ChamberlainK (1999) Using grounded theory in health psychology. In: MurrayMChamberlainK (eds) Qualitative Health Psychology. London: SAGE, pp. 183–201.
7.
CharlesCAGafniAWhelanT (1997) Shared decision making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine44: 681–692.
8.
CharlesCAGafniAWhelanT (2004) Self-reported use of shared decision-making among breast cancer specialists and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing this approach. Health Expectations7(4): 338–348.
9.
ChewningBBylundLCShahBet al. (2012) Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling86: 9–18.
10.
ClandininDJConnellyFM (2000) Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
11.
CoulterACollinsA (2011) Making Shared Decision Making a Reality: No Decision about Me, without Me. London: The King’s Fund.
12.
DeberRBKraetschmerNUrowitzSet al. (2007) Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations. Health Expectations10(3): 248–258.
13.
Department of Health (DOH) (2001) The Expert Patient: A New Approach to Chronic Disease Management for the 21st Century. London: DOH.
14.
Department of Health (DOH) (2005) Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (2nd edn). London: DOH.
15.
Department of Health (DOH) (2010) Liberating the NHS: No Decision about Me, without Me. London: Crown.
16.
ElkinEBKimSHMCasperESet al. (2007) Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: Elderly cancer patients’ preferences and their physicians’ perceptions. Journal of Clinical Oncology25(33): 5275–5280.
17.
ElwynGCharlesC (2001) Shared decision making: The principles and the competences. In: EdwardsAElwynG (eds) Evidence-Based Patient Choice: Inevitable or Impossible?Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–143.
18.
ElwynGFroschDThomsonRet al. (2012) Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine27(10): 1361–1367.
19.
FroschDLMaySGRendleKAet al. (2012) Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labelled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Affairs31: 1030–1038.
20.
HowittD (2010) Introduction to Qualitative Methods in Psychology (2nd edn). London: Prentice Hall.
21.
HubbardGKiddLDonaghyE (2008) Preferences for involvement in treatment decision making of patients with cancer: A review of the literature. European Journal of Oncology Nursing12(4): 299–318.
22.
HusserlE (1970) The Idea of Phenomenology. Leiden: Martinus Hijhoff Publishers.
23.
JoostenEAGDeFuentes-MerillasLDe WeertGHet al. (2008) Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics77(4): 219–226.
24.
JoplingD (1996) Sub-phenomenology. Human Studies19(2): 153–173.
25.
Joseph-WilliamsNElwynGEdwardsA (2014) Knowledge is not power for patients: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Education and Counseling94(3): 291–309.
26.
KvåleKBondevikM (2008) What is important for patient centred care? A qualitative study about the perceptions of patients with cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences22(4): 582–589.
27.
LamWWTKwokMChanMet al. (2014) Does the use of shared decision-making consultation behaviors increase treatment decision-making satisfaction among Chinese women facing decision for breast cancer surgery?Patient Education and Counseling94(2): 243–249.
28.
LorigKRSobelDSRitterPLet al. (2001) Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice4: 256–262.
29.
MandelblattJKrelingBFigeuriedoMet al. (2006) What is the impact of shared decision making on treatment and outcomes for older women with breast cancer?American Society of Clinical Oncology24(30): 4908–4913.
30.
Merleau-PontyM (2012) Phenomenology of Perception (trans. LandesD). London; New York: Routledge.
31.
MilesMBHubermanAM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edn). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
32.
NICE (2004) Guidance on Cancer Services: Improving Supportive and Palliative Care for Adults with Cancer. London: NICE.
33.
NICE (2012) Patient Experience in Adult NHS Services: Improving the Experience of Care for People Using Adult NHS Services. London: NICE.
34.
O’ConnorAWennbergJELegareFet al. (2007) Toward the “tipping point”: Decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Affairs26(3): 716–725.
35.
SaboBSt-JacquesNRaysonD (2007) The decision-making experience among women diagnosed with stage I and II breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment102: 51–59.
36.
SayRMurtaghMThomsonR (2006) Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: A narrative review. Education and Counseling60(2): 102–114.
37.
SiminoffLA (2010) The ethics of communication in cancer and palliative care. In: KissaneDBultzBDButowPMet al. (eds) Handbook of Communication in Oncology and Palliative Care. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–61.
38.
SinghJASloanJAAthertonPJet al. (2010) Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: A pooled analysis of studies using the control preferences scale. American Journal of Managed Care16(9): 688–696.
39.
SmithJ (2008) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide for Research Methods (2nd edn). London: SAGE.
40.
TarimanJDBerryDLCochraneBet al. (2010) Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: A systematic review. Annals of Oncology21(6): 1145–1151.
41.
The British Psychological Society (BPS) (2014) Code of Human Research Ethics. Leicester: BPS.
TowleAGodolphinW (1999) Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. British Medical Journal319: 766–771.
44.
VogelBABengelJHelmesAW (2008) Information and decision making: Patients’ needs and experiences in the course of breast cancer treatment. Patient Education and Counseling71(1): 79–85.
45.
WilligC (2008) Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method (2nd edn). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
