IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i1p89-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Loïs F. van de Water

    (Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Danique W. Bos–van den Hoek

    (Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Steven C. Kuijper

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Geert-Jan Creemers

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Serge E. Dohmen

    (Department of Medical Oncology, BovenIJ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Helle-Brit Fiebrich

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands)

  • Petronella B. Ottevanger

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands)

  • Dirkje W. Sommeijer

    (Department of Medical Oncology, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands)

  • Filip Y. F. de Vos

    (Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Ellen M. A. Smets

    (Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Amsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Inge Henselmans

    (Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Background While shared decision making (SDM) is advocated for ethical reasons and beneficial outcomes, SDM might also negatively affect patients with incurable cancer. The current study explored whether SDM, and an oncologist training in SDM, are associated with adverse outcomes (i.e., patient anxiety, tension, helplessness/hopelessness, decisional uncertainty, and reduced fighting spirit). Design A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of SDM interventions in the context of advanced cancer. The relations between observed SDM (OPTION12), specific SDM elements (4SDM), oncologist SDM training, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. We modeled adverse outcomes as a multivariate phenomenon, followed by univariate regressions if significant. Results In total, 194 patients consulted by 31 oncologists were included. In a multivariate analysis, observed SDM and adverse outcomes were significantly related. More specifically, more observed SDM in the consultation was related to patients reporting more tension ( P  = 0.002) and more decisional uncertainty ( P  = 0.004) at 1 wk after the consultation. The SDM element “informing about the options†was especially found to be related to adverse outcomes, specifically to more helplessness/hopelessness ( P  = 0.002) and more tension ( P  = 0.016) at 1 wk after the consultation. Whether the patient consulted an oncologist who had received SDM training or not was not significantly related to adverse outcomes. No relations with long-term adverse outcomes were found. Conclusions It is important for oncologists to realize that for some patients, SDM may temporarily be associated with negative emotions. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and whether and how burden may be minimized for patients. Highlights Observed shared decision making was related to more tension and uncertainty postconsultation in advanced cancer patients However, training oncologists in SDM did not affect adverse outcomes. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and how burden may be minimized

Suggested Citation

  • Loïs F. van de Water & Danique W. Bos–van den Hoek & Steven C. Kuijper & Hanneke W. M. van Laarhoven & Geert-Jan Creemers & Serge E. Dohmen & Helle-Brit Fiebrich & Petronella B. Ottevanger & Dirkje, 2024. "Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(1), pages 89-101, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:1:p:89-101
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231208448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231208448
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231208448?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. Michael Saheb Kashaf & Elizabeth McGill, 2015. "Does Shared Decision Making in Cancer Treatment Improve Quality of Life? A Systematic Literature Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 1037-1048, November.
    2. L. Aubree Shay & Jennifer Elston Lafata, 2015. "Where Is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Shared Decision Making and Patient Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 114-131, January.
    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. Sumayah Rodenburg-Vandenbussche & Arwen H Pieterse & Pieter M Kroonenberg & Isabelle Scholl & Trudy van der Weijden & Gre P M Luyten & Roy F P M Kruitwagen & Henk den Ouden & Ingrid V E Carlier & Iren, 2015. "Dutch Translation and Psychometric Testing of the 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Shared Decision Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) in Primary and Secondary ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    2. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    3. Anders Broström & Bengt Fridlund & Berith Hedberg & Per Nilsen & Martin Ulander, 2017. "Communication between patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome and healthcare personnel during the initial visit to a continuous positive airway pressure clinic," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3-4), pages 568-577, February.
    4. Maya Kylén & Ulla-Karin Schön & Hélène Pessah-Rasmussen & Marie Elf, 2022. "Patient Participation and the Environment: A Scoping Review of Instruments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Modigh, Anton & Sampaio, Filipa & Moberg, Linda & Fredriksson, Mio, 2021. "The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1208-1221.
    6. Footman, Katy, 2024. "The illusion of treatment choice in abortion care: A qualitative study of comparative care experiences in England and Wales," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    7. Francesco Baratta & Francesco Angelico & Maria Del Ben, 2023. "Challenges in Improving Adherence to Diet and Drug Treatment in Hypercholesterolemia Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-12, May.
    8. Michael Brown & Anna Higgins & Juliet MacArthur, 2020. "Transition from child to adult health services: A qualitative study of the views and experiences of families of young adults with intellectual disabilities," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1-2), pages 195-207, January.
    9. Mara Gorli & Serena Barello, 2021. "Patient Centredness, Values, Equity and Sustainability: Professional, Organizational and Institutional Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-7, November.
    10. Rami H. Al-Rifai & Iffat Elbarazi & Nasloon Ali & Tom Loney & Abderrahim Oulhaj & Luai A. Ahmed, 2020. "Knowledge and Preference Towards Mode of Delivery among Pregnant Women in the United Arab Emirates: The Mutaba’ah Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Yuexi Yang & Tingting Qu & Jinyue Yang & Ben Ma & Anli Leng, 2022. "Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    12. Meron Hirpa & Tinsay Woreta & Hilena Addis & Sosena Kebede, 2020. "What matters to patients? A timely question for value-based care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Yuko Goto & Hisayuki Miura, 2022. "Validation of the Novel Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to Facilitate Multidisciplinary Team Building in Patient-Centered Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-13, November.
    14. Lama Sultan & Basim Alsaywid & Nynke De Jong & Jascha De Nooijer, 2022. "Current Trends in Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Programmes in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-39, October.
    15. Semra Ozdemir & Isha Chaudhry & Si Ning Germaine Tan & Irene Teo & Chetna Malhotra & Rahul Malhotra & Eric Andrew Finkelstein, 2023. "Variation in Patient-Reported Decision-Making Roles in the Last Year of Life among Patients with Metastatic Cancer: A Longitudinal Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 203-213, February.
    16. Charlotte Ytterberg & Hanne Kaae Kristensen & Malin Tistad & Lena von Koch, 2020. "Factors related to met needs for rehabilitation 6 years after stroke," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    17. repec:oup:jconrs:v:49:y:2023:i:5:p:926-939. is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Jayoung Han & Paiboon Jungsuwadee & Olufunmilola Abraham & Dongwoo Ko, 2018. "Shared Decision-Making and Women’s Adherence to Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    19. Aleksandra Kołtuniuk & Justyna Chojdak-Łukasiewicz, 2022. "Adherence to Therapy in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis—Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-9, February.
    20. Arwen H. Pieterse & Kim Brandes & Jessica de Graaf & Joyce E. de Boer & Nanon H. M. Labrie & Anouk Knops & Cornelia F. Allaart & Johanna E. A. Portielje & Willem Jan W. Bos & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2022. "Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 375-386, April.
    21. Semra Ozdemir & Jia Jia Lee & Khung Keong Yeo & Kheng Leng David Sim & Eric Andrew Finkelstein & Chetna Malhotra, 2023. "A Prospective Cohort Study of Medical Decision-Making Roles and Their Associations with Patient Characteristics and Patient-Reported Outcomes among Patients with Heart Failure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 863-874, October.

    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:44:y:2024:i:1:p:89-101. 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.