Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 20 of 134 items for :

  • "shared decision-making" x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Douglas E. Wood, Ella A. Kazerooni, Scott L. Baum, George A. Eapen, David S. Ettinger, Lifang Hou, David M. Jackman, Donald Klippenstein, Rohit Kumar, Rudy P. Lackner, Lorriana E. Leard, Inga T. Lennes, Ann N.C. Leung, Samir S. Makani, Pierre P. Massion, Peter Mazzone, Robert E. Merritt, Bryan F. Meyers, David E. Midthun, Sudhakar Pipavath, Christie Pratt, Chakravarthy Reddy, Mary E. Reid, Arnold J. Rotter, Peter B. Sachs, Matthew B. Schabath, Mark L. Schiebler, Betty C. Tong, William D. Travis, Benjamin Wei, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina M. Gregory, and Miranda Hughes

–77 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history) if they also receive counseling and participate in shared decision-making before screening. The American College of Chest Physicians and ASCO also recommend LCS with LDCT for individuals at high risk if they

Full access

Titilayo O. Adegboyega, Jeffrey Landercasper, Jared H. Linebarger, Jeanne M. Johnson, Jeremiah J. Andersen, Leah L. Dietrich, Collin D. Driscoll, Meghana Raghavendra, Anusha R. Madadi, Mohammed Al-Hamadani, Choua A. Vang, Kristen A. Marcou, Jane Hudak, and Ronald S. Go

. Understanding reasons for noncompliance can potentially aid a national quality strategy. The nonquality reasons for lack of receipt of recommended therapy were comorbidities, limited life expectancy, patient refusal, patient choice after shared decision-making

Full access

Héctor G. van den Boorn, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Nadia Haj Mohammad, Maarten C.C.M. Hulshof, Suzanne S. Gisbertz, Bastiaan R. Klarenbeek, Marije Slingerland, Laurens V. Beerepoot, Tom Rozema, Mirjam A.G. Sprangers, Rob H.A. Verhoeven, Martijn G.H. van Oijen, Koos H. Zwinderman, and Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven

preferences and values should play a significant role in shared decision-making concerning treatment options. 9 When deciding on treatment, it is therefore vital that patients are provided accurate and preferably personalized information about the risks

Full access

Dawn J. Brooks

50 years, with the recommendation that the decision to refer women in their 40s for screening be based on shared decision-making (ie, a discussion of the risks and benefits of screening between physician and patient). In addition, the recommended

Full access

Kathryn P. Pennington, Renata R. Urban, and Heidi J. Gray

cervical cancer and patients should be guided appropriately to make informed shared decision-making if they still desire MIS. Disclosures: The authors have disclosed that they have no financial interests, arrangements, affiliations, or commercial

Full access

Héctor G. van den Boorn, Willemieke P.M. Dijksterhuis, Lydia G.M. van der Geest, Judith de Vos-Geelen, Marc G. Besselink, Johanna W. Wilmink, Martijn G.H. van Oijen, and Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven

emergence of prediction models in various cancer types has contributed to assessment of individually aligned prediction of prognosis and support of shared decision-making in clinical practice. 7 These models based on patient, tumor, and treatment

Full access

Seanthel Delos Santos, Noah Witzke, Bishal Gyawali, Vanessa Sarah Arciero, Amanda Putri Rahmadian, Louis Everest, Matthew C. Cheung, and Kelvin K. Chan

ongoing approval. Closing the knowledge gap and facilitating shared decision-making between patients and physicians about the clinical benefits and costs of cancer drugs were the main goals of the ASCO Value in Cancer Care Task Force. ASCO developed a

Full access

Tara M. Mackay, Anouk E.J. Latenstein, Mirjam A.G. Sprangers, Lydia G. van der Geest, Geert-Jan Creemers, Susan van Dieren, Jan-Willem B. de Groot, Bas Groot Koerkamp, Ignace H. de Hingh, Marjolein Y.V. Homs, Evelien J.M. de Jong, I. Quintus Molenaar, Gijs A. Patijn, Lonneke V. van de Poll-Franse, Hjalmar C. van Santvoort, Judith de Vos-Geelen, Johanna W. Wilmink, Casper H. van Eijck, Marc G. Besselink, Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven, and for the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group

explained variance analysis (Nagelkerke R 2 ), we found that the QoL items were of additional prognostic value on top of the clinical variables. Given the prognostic value of QoL parameters, these parameters may be used during shared decision-making

Full access

Arkadiusz Spychala, Michal Oko, Olga Zając-Spychala, and Witold Kycler

Background: Relevant information is a prerequisite for patients to acquire enough knowledge to enable them to be actively involved in shared decision making, to comply with the treatment plan, and to understand what are potential benefits and side

Full access

Jeffrey K. Belkora, David W. Hutton, Dan H. Moore, and Laura A. Siminoff

Adjuvant! is a model that provides recurrence and mortality risk predictions for patients with breast cancer considering adjuvant therapies. Although low-risk patients who saw Adjuvant! chose adjuvant therapy less frequently, whether this was because of educational or other aspects of the decision aid is unknown. The authors explored whether Adjuvant! affects choice of therapy through increased patient knowledge. A subset of data were analyzed from a cluster randomized trial in which oncology practices in 2 major United States cities were randomly assigned to use either Adjuvant! or an informational pamphlet to educate patients. Of 405 patients, 48 were low-risk, with 28 assigned to the decision aid and 20 to the pamphlet. Among the low-risk patients, using frequency tables and Fisher exact tests, the authors explored whether Adjuvant! was associated with more accurate patient estimates of survival; whether accuracy was associated with treatment choice; and whether, after controlling for accuracy, any remaining association was seen between Adjuvant! and treatment choice. Adjuvant! was associated with more accurate estimates of baseline prognosis compared with the pamphlet (57% vs. 25%; P = .04). Patients who had more accurate estimates of baseline prognosis were less likely to choose adjuvant therapy (62% vs. 89%; P = .04). After controlling for accuracy, no statistically significant association was found between the use of Adjuvant! and adjuvant therapy (P = .59 and P = .11 for inaccurate and accurate patients, respectively). Adjuvant! seems to influence patient choice through educational rather than other means of persuasion. However, many patients held inaccurate risk perceptions after viewing Adjuvant!.