IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i8p5550-d1125853.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-Making Preferences among Advanced Cancer Patients in a Palliative Setting in Jordan

Author

Listed:
  • Omar Shamieh

    (Department of Palliative Care, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan
    Center for Palliative & Cancer Care in Conflict, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan
    Faculty of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Ghadeer Alarjeh

    (Center for Palliative & Cancer Care in Conflict, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Mohammad Al Qadire

    (Faculty of Nursing, Al al-Bayt University, Mafraq 25113, Jordan
    College of Nursing, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat 123, Oman)

  • Waleed Alrjoub

    (Center for Palliative & Cancer Care in Conflict, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Mahmoud Abu-Nasser

    (Department of Palliative Care, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan
    Department of Medicine, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Fadi Abu Farsakh

    (Department of Palliative Care, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Abdelrahman AlHawamdeh

    (Department of Palliative Care, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Mohammad Al-Omari

    (Department of Palliative Care, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Zaid Amin

    (Department of Palliative Care, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Omar Ayaad

    (Office of Nursing, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • Amal Al-Tabba

    (Department of Palliative Care, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman 11941, Jordan)

  • David Hui

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA)

  • Eduardo Bruera

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA)

  • Sriram Yennurajalingam

    (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA)

Abstract

Understanding patients’ decision-making preferences is crucial for enhancing patients’ outcomes. The current study aims to identify Jordanian advanced cancer patients’ preferred decision-making and to explore the associated variables of the passive decision-making preference. We used a cross-sectional survey design. Patients with advanced cancer referred to the palliative care clinic at a tertiary cancer center were recruited. We measured patients’ decision-making preferences using the Control Preference Scale. Patients’ satisfaction with decision-making was assessed with the Satisfaction with Decision Scale. Cohen’s kappa statistic was used to assess the agreement between decision-control preferences and actual decision-making, and the bivariate analysis with 95% CI and the univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to examine the association and predictors of the demographical and clinical characteristics of the participants and the participants’ decision-control preferences, respectively. A total of 200 patients completed the survey. The patients’ median age was 49.8 years, and 115 (57.5%) were female. Of them, 81 (40.5%) preferred passive decision control, and 70 (35%) and 49 (24.5%) preferred shared and active decision control, respectively. Less educated participants, females, and Muslim patients were found to have a statistically significant association with passive decision-control preferences. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that, being a male ( p = 0.003), highly educated ( p = 0.018), and a Christian ( p = 0.006) were statistically significant correlates of active decision-control preferences. Meanwhile, the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that being a male or a Christian were the only statistically significant predictors of active participants’ decision-control preferences. Around 168 (84%) of participants were satisfied with the way decisions were made, 164 (82%) of patients were satisfied with the actual decisions made, and 143 (71.5%) were satisfied with the shared information. The agreement level between decision-making preferences and actual decision practices was significant (ⱪ coefficient = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.79). The study’s results demonstrate that a passive decision-control preference was prominent among patients with advanced cancer in Jordan. Further studies are needed to evaluate decision-control preference for additional variables, such as patients’ psychosocial and spiritual factors, communication, and information sharing preferences, throughout the cancer trajectory so as to inform policies and improve practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Omar Shamieh & Ghadeer Alarjeh & Mohammad Al Qadire & Waleed Alrjoub & Mahmoud Abu-Nasser & Fadi Abu Farsakh & Abdelrahman AlHawamdeh & Mohammad Al-Omari & Zaid Amin & Omar Ayaad & Amal Al-Tabba & Dav, 2023. "Decision-Making Preferences among Advanced Cancer Patients in a Palliative Setting in Jordan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(8), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:8:p:5550-:d:1125853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/8/5550/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/8/5550/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Jill Kroll & Neal Schmitt & David R. Rovner & M. Lynn Breer & Marilyn L. Rothert & Georgia Padonu & Geraldine Talarczyk, 1996. "Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 58-64, February.
    2. Yew Kong Lee & Wah Yun Low & Chirk Jenn Ng, 2013. "Exploring Patient Values in Medical Decision Making: A Qualitative Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-9, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yueh-Ling Liao & Tsae-Jyy Wang & Chien-Wei Su & Shu-Yuan Liang & Chieh-Yu Liu & Jun-Yu Fan, 2023. "Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(1), pages 233-243, January.
    2. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    3. Blanca Lumbreras & Lucy Anne Parker & Pablo Alonso-Coello & Javier Mira-Bernabeu & Luis Gómez-Pérez & Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu & Salvador Pertusa-Martínez & Ana Cebrián-Cuenca & Irene Moral-Peláez &, 2022. "PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-9, July.
    4. Richard L. Street JR & Becky Voigt, 1997. "Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 298-306, July.
    5. Rhéa Rocque & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Roland Grad & Holly O. Witteman, 2020. "What Matters to Patients and Families: A Content and Process Framework for Clarifying Preferences, Concerns, and Values," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 722-734, August.
    6. Li‐Hsiang Wang & Suzanne Goopy & Chun‐Chih Lin & Alan Barnard & Chin‐Yen Han & Hsueh‐Erh Liu, 2016. "The emergency patient's participation in medical decision‐making," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2550-2558, September.
    7. Tetine Sentell & Joy Agner & Ruth Pitt & James Davis & Mary Guo & Elizabeth McFarlane, 2020. "Considering Health Literacy, Health Decision Making, and Health Communication in the Social Networks of Vulnerable New Mothers in Hawai‘i: A Pilot Feasibility Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Pundziene, Asta & Sermontyte-Baniule, Rima & Rialp-Criado, Josep & Chesbrough, Henry, 2023. "Indirect effect of open innovation on clinical and economic value creation in digital healthcare: A comparative study of European countries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    9. Yi-Chih Lee & Wei-Li Wu, 2019. "Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Davit Marikyan & Savvas Papagiannidis, 2024. "Exercising the “Right to Repair”: A Customer’s Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(1), pages 35-61, August.
    11. Gisèle Diendéré & Imen Farhat & Holly Witteman & Ruth Ndjaboue, 2021. "Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 51-59, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:8:p:5550-:d:1125853. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.