IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v17y1997i3p298-306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life

Author

Listed:
  • Richard L. Street JR
  • Becky Voigt

Abstract

This investigation of patients with early breast cancer examined relationships among patient involvement in deciding treatment (i.e., whether to undergo breast removal or breast conservation), perceptions of control over treatment decisions, and subsequent health-related quality of life. It was predicted 1) that patients who more actively participated in consultations to decide treatment would perceive more decision control than would more passive patients and 2) that patients who perceived greater decision control would report better health-related quality of life following treatment than would patients perceiving less decision control. Sixty patients with stage I or II breast cancer allowed their consultations with surgeons to be audiorecorded. Following these visits, patients reported on their involvement in the consultation, optimism for the future, knowledge about treatment, and two aspects of perceived decision control, the perception of having a choice for treatment and the extent to which the doctor or patient was responsible for the decision. Six and 12 months postoperatively, 51 patients (85%) returned a follow-up survey assessing perceived decision control and health-related quality of life. The first prediction received some support. The patients who had more actively participated in their consultations, particularly in terms of offering opinions, assumed more responsibility for treatment decisions during the year following surgery than did less expressive patients. Also, the patients who reported more involvement in their consultations later believed they had had more of a choice for treatment. The second hypothesis was partially supported. Six and 12 months following treatment, the patients who believed they were more responsible for treatment decisions and believed they had more choice of treatment reported higher levels of quality of life than did the patients who perceived themselves to have less decision control. However, perceived control at the time of treatment did not predict later quality of life. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed. Key words : decision control; patient participation; breast cancer; health-related quality of life. (Med Decis Making 1997;17:298-306)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:17:y:1997:i:3:p:298-306
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9701700306
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9701700306?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Rost, Kathryn & Carter, William & Inui, Thomas, 1989. "Introduction of information during the initial medical visit: Consequences for patient follow-through with physician recommendations for medication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 315-321, January.
    3. Mumford, E. & Schlesinger, H.J. & Glass, G.V., 1982. "The effects of psychological intervention on recovery from surgery and heart attacks: An analysis of the literature," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 72(2), pages 141-151.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gaston, Christine M. & Mitchell, Geoffrey, 2005. "Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 2252-2264, November.
    2. James G. Dolan & Susan Frisina, 2002. "Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(2), pages 125-139, April.
    3. Mark Sculpher, 1998. "The cost‐effectiveness of preference‐based treatment allocation: the case of hysterectomy versus endometrial resection in the treatment of menorrhagia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(2), pages 129-142, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Conboy, Lisa Ann & Macklin, Eric & Kelley, John & Kokkotou, Efi & Lembo, Anthony & Kaptchuk, Ted, 2010. "Which patients improve: Characteristics increasing sensitivity to a supportive patient-practitioner relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 479-484, February.
    3. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2011. "Adherence and Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 121-129, January.
    4. Yi-Chih Lee & Wei-Li Wu, 2019. "Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-14, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Budych, Karolina & Helms, Thomas M. & Schultz, Carsten, 2012. "How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 154-164.
    10. Muhlemann, A. & Price, D. & Afferson, M. & Sharp, J., 1995. "A computer based approach for enhancing manufacturing decision making in smaller manufacturing enterprises: A longitudinal study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 97-107, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:medema:v:17:y:1997:i:3:p:298-306. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.