Background: We investigated factors involved in decision-making support provided by physicians, nurses, pharmacists and medical and psychiatric social workers involved in cancer care. Materials & methods: A questionnaire survey on decision-making support was conducted. The level of clinician support was classified as ‘supporting patients’ ‘decision-making process regarding cancer treatment’, ‘no support for patients’ ‘decision-making process regarding cancer treatment’ or ‘team-based support for patients’ ‘decision-making process regarding cancer treatment’. Results: Physicians estimated that 83.7% of patients made a cancer treatment decision within 1 week, but 45.4% of patients had difficulty making a decision. Conclusion: Medical personnel should support patients who have difficulty making decisions, establish a screening method to identify those needing support and develop a system providing decision-making support through interprofessional work.

Plain language summary

We conducted a survey to investigate issues related to the level of decision-making support provided by physicians, nurses, pharmacists medical social workers and psychiatric social workers involved in cancer care. The physicians reported that 83.7% of patients with cancer chose a treatment plan within 1 week, although 45.4% of patients had difficulty making a decision. These decision-making difficulties arose at the time of diagnosis, when having difficulty controlling adverse events and when cancer metastasis or recurrence occurred. Some medical providers supported patients who had particular difficulty in choosing their cancer treatment, others provided no support, while a third group orchestrated a team to support them in their decision-making. To improve the quality of decision-making support, interprofessional work should be promoted and screening tools to identify those who need support should be established.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

1. The American Cancer Society. Cancer survivorship (2019). https://canceratlas.cancer.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CA3_CancerSurvivorship.pdf
Google Scholar
2. Gupta S, Harper A, Ruan Y et al. International trends in the incidence of cancer among adolescents and young adults. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 112(11), 1105–1117 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Barnett M, McDonnell G, DeRosa A et al. Psychosocial outcomes and interventions among cancer survivors diagnosed during adolescence and young adulthood (AYA): a systematic review. J. Cancer Surviv. 10(5), 814–831 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Bamidele OO, McCaughan E. A constructivist grounded theory study on decision making for treatment choice among Black African and Black Caribbean prostate cancer survivors. Eur. J. Cancer Care 31(1), e13516 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Shen MJ, Nelson CJ, Peters E et al. Decision-making processes among prostate cancer survivors with rising PSA levels: results from a qualitative analysis. Med. Decis. Making 35(4), 477–486 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Abdelhadi OA, Pollock BH, Joseph J, Keegan THM. Shared decision-making among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors and noncancer adults: associated medical expenditures and health care utilization. J. Adolesc. Young Adult Oncol. 12(2), 168–176 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Krok-Schoen JL, Palmer-Wackerly AL, Dailey PM, Wojno JC, Krieger JL. Age differences in cancer treatment decision making and social support. J. Aging Health 29(2), 187–205 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Shay LA, Schmidt S, Cornell SD, Parsons HM. ‘Making my own decisions sometimes’: a pilot study of young adult cancer survivors’ perspectives on medical decision-making. J. Cancer Educ. 33(6), 1341–1346 (2018). • Older patients want to be involved in medical decision-making but have a greater sense of uncertainty and fear with regard to receiving bad news
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Owens OL, Dawson RM, Thomas T. Development of the prostate cancer treatment decision framework: a context-specific expansion of the risk-as-feelings hypothesis. Cancer Nurs. 44(6), E467–E475 (2021). • Prostate cancer patients’ communication with their healthcare providers may affect their personal perceptions.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Acquati C, Hibbard JH, Miller-Sonet E, Zhang A, Ionescu E. Patient activation and treatment decision-making in the context of cancer: examining the contribution of informal caregivers’ involvement. J Cancer Surviv. 16(5), 929–939 (2022). • Treatment plans that reflect the patients’ goals and values induce them to become more actively involved in the decision-making process.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4(4), CD001431 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Garvelink MM, Groen-van de Ven L, Smits C, Franken R, Dassen-Vernooij M, Légaré F. Shared decision making about housing transitions for persons with dementia: a four-case care network perspective. Gerontologist 59(5), 822–834 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Yu CH, Ke C, Jovicic A, Hall S, Straus SE, P-SDM Team. Beyond pros and cons – developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 19(1), 186 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Covvey JR, Kamal KM, Gorse EE et al. Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in oncology: a systematic review of the literature. Support. Care Cancer 27(5), 1613–1637 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Owens OL, Estrada RM, Johnson K et al. ‘I'm not a chance taker’: a mixed methods exploration of factors affecting prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Ethn. Health 26(8), 1143–1162 (2021). • The decision-making of prostate cancer survivors and their positive perceptions of the outcomes were found to be most influenced by the perceived authenticity of provider communication.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Oswald LB, Schumacher FA, Gonzalez BD, Moses KA, Penson DF, Morgans AK. What do men with metastatic prostate cancer consider when making treatment decisions? A mixed-methods study. Patient Prefer. Adher. 14, 1949–1959 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Cuypers M, Lamers RED, de Vries M, Husson O, Kil PJM, van de Poll-Franse LV. Prostate cancer survivors with a passive role preference in treatment decision-making are less satisfied with information received: results from the PROFILES registry. Urol. Oncol. 34(11), 482.e11–482.e18 (2016). • Regarding the attitude of patients with cancer toward decision-making, participants who showed a tendency to be more passive were characterized by old age, lower education levels, reception of less information, lower satisfaction levels and choice of less invasive treatments.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Chhatre S, Wittink MN, Gallo JJ, Jayadevappa R. Sources of information for learning and decision-making in men with localized prostate cancer. Am. J. Mens Health 14(5), 1557988320945461 (2020). • Regarding effective ways to provide information during decision-making support, health providers, medical websites and pamphlets from the doctor’s office tended to be considered useful sources of information for decision-making.
Google Scholar
19. Zaami S, Montanari Vergallo G, Moscatelli M, Napoletano S, Sernia S, La Torre G. Oncofertility: the importance of counseling for fertility preservation in cancer patients. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 25(22), 6874–6880 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Pagani O, Ruggeri M, Manunta S et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: are young patients willing to participate in clinical studies? Breast 24(3), 201–207 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Sella T, Poorvu PD, Ruddy KJ et al. Impact of fertility concerns on endocrine therapy decisions in young breast cancer survivors. Cancer 127(16), 2888–2894 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
22. Zaami S, Melcarne R, Patrone R et al. Oncofertility and reproductive counseling in patients with breast cancer: a retrospective study. J. Clin. Med. 11(5), 1311 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Yeomanson DJ, Morgan S, Pacey AA. Discussing fertility preservation at the time of cancer diagnosis: dissatisfaction of young females. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 60(12), 1996–2000 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Logan S, Anazodo A. The psychological importance of fertility preservation counseling and support for cancer patients. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 98(5), 583–597 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Dolmans MM. Recent advances in fertility preservation and counseling for female cancer patients. Expert. Rev. Anticancer Ther. 18(2), 115–120 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Deshpande NA, Braun IM, Meyer FL. Impact of fertility preservation counseling and treatment on psychological outcomes among women with cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 121(22), 3938–3947 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Campbell JE, Assanasen C, Robinson RD, Knudtson JF. Fertility preservation counseling for pediatric and adolescent cancer patients. J. Adolesc. Young Adult Oncol. 5(1), 58–63 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Boerger-Knowles K, Ridley T. Chronic cancer: counseling the individual. Soc. Work Health Care 53(1), 11–30 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Haussmann A, Ungar N, Tsiouris A. Physical activity counseling to cancer patients: how are patients addressed and who benefits most? Patient Educ. Couns. 104(12), 2999–3007 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. D'Egidio V, Sestili C, Mancino M et al. Counseling interventions delivered in women with breast cancer to improve health-related quality of life: a systematic review. Qual. Life Res. 26(10), 2573–2592 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Sherman DW, Haber J, Hoskins CN et al. The effects of psychoeducation and telephone counseling on the adjustment of women with early-stage breast cancer. Appl. Nurs. Res. 25(1), 3–16 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Gustafson A. Reducing patient uncertainty: implementation of a shared decision-making process enhances treatment quality and provider communication. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 21(1), 113–115 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Tariman JD, Tarvainis A, Webber-Ritchey KJ, Simonovich SD. Shared decision-making competency: provider-specific factors in hematology-oncology clinical practice. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 24(4), 346–351 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Tariman JD, Mehmeti E, Spawn N et al. Oncology nursing and shared decision making for cancer treatment. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 20(5), 560–563 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 19, No. 33

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 33 times

History

Received 20 April 2023

Accepted 25 September 2023

Published online 31 October 2023

Published in print October 2023

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2023-0335

Author contributions

Y Kawasasaki, K Hirai: investigation, methodology, resources, software; A Uchinuno, Y Kawasasaki: supervision, validation, visualization; Y Kawasasaki: writing (original draft); Y Kawasasaki, K Hirai, A Uchinuno, M Nii and Y Kawasasaki: writing (review and editing).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank those who responded to our survey.

Financial disclosure

This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant No. 18H03084. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Competing interests disclosure

The authors have no competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options and expert testimony.

Writing disclosure

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

The authors state that they have obtained appropriate institutional review board approval or have followed the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki for all human or animal experimental investigations. In addition, for investigations involving human subjects, informed consent has been obtained from the participants involved.

PDF download