Author
Listed:
- Ellen G. Engelhardt
(Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)
- Ellen M. A. Smets
(Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, the Netherlands)
- Irini Sorial
(Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, the Netherlands)
- Anne M. Stiggelbout
(Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)
- Arwen H. Pieterse
(Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands)
- Marij A. Hillen
(Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, the Netherlands)
Abstract
Background . Adjuvant systemic treatment for early stage breast cancer significantly reduces the risk of mortality but is associated with side effects, reducing patients’ quality of life. Decisions about adjuvant treatment are preference sensitive and are thus ideally suited to a shared decision making (SDM) approach. Whether and how SDM affects patients’ trust in their oncologist is currently unknown. We investigated the association between patients’ trust in their oncologist and 1) observed level of SDM in the consultation, 2) congruence between patients’ preferred and perceived level of participation, and 3) patient and oncologist characteristics. Methods . Decision consultations ( n = 101) between breast cancer patients and their medical oncologist were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Patients’ trust in their oncologist was measured using the Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS). The observed level of SDM was scored using the 12-item Observing Patient Involvement In Decision Making scale (OPTION-12), preferred level of participation with the Control Preferences Scale, and perceived level of participation with an open question in telephonic interviews. Results . The average TiOS score was high overall (mean [SD] = 4.1 [.56]; range, 2.6–5.0). Low levels of SDM were observed (mean [SD] = 16 [11.6]; range, 2–56). Neither observed nor perceived level of participation in SDM was associated with trust. Patients’ preferred and perceived role in decision making was incongruent in almost 50% of treatment decisions. Congruence was not related to trust. A larger tumor size (β = 4.5, P = 0.03) and the use of a risk prediction model during the consultation (β = 4.1, P = 0.04) were associated with stronger trust. Conclusion . Patients reported strong trust in their oncologist. While low levels of SDM were observed, SDM was not associated with trust. These findings suggest it may not be necessary to worry about negative consequences for trust of using SDM or risk prediction models in oncological consultations. Considering the increased emphasis on implementing SDM, it is important to further explore how SDM affects trust in clinical practice.
Suggested Citation
Ellen G. Engelhardt & Ellen M. A. Smets & Irini Sorial & Anne M. Stiggelbout & Arwen H. Pieterse & Marij A. Hillen, 2020.
"Is There a Relationship between Shared Decision Making and Breast Cancer Patients’ Trust in Their Medical Oncologists?,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 52-61, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:1:p:52-61
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19889905
Download full text from publisher
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:40:y:2020:i:1:p:52-61. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.