Search

Objective Patient involvement in decision making is conditional for personalized treatment decisions. We aim to provide an up-to-date overview of patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment. Methods A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for articles published between January 2009 and January 2020. Search terms were 'decision making', 'patient participation', 'oncology', 'perception' and 'treatment'. Inclusion criteria were: written in English, peer-reviewed, reporting patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement, including adult cancer patients and concerning decision making for cancer treatment. The percentages of patients preferring and perceiving an active, shared or passive decision role and the (dis)concordance are presented. Quality assessment was performed with a modified version of the New-Castle Ottawa Scale. Results Thirty-one studies were included. The median percentage of patients preferring an active, shared or passive role in decision making was respectively 25%, 46%, and 27%. The median percentage of patients perceiving an active, shared or passive role was respectively 27%, 39%, and 34%. The median concordance in preferred and perceived role of all studies was 70%. Disconcordance was highest for a shared role; 42%. Conclusions Patients' preferences for involvement in cancer treatment decision vary widely. A significant number of patients perceived a decisional role other than preferred. Improvements in patient involvement have been observed in the last decade. However, there is still room for improvement and physicians should explore patients' preferences for involvement in decision making in order to truly deliver personalized cancer care. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Objective Improving shared decision‐making (SDM) enables more tailored cancer treatment decisions. We evaluated a Time Out consultation (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP), between cancer diagnosis and treatment decision, which aims at supporting SDM and improving continuity of primary care. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a TOC on perceived SDM, information provision and self‐efficacy. Methods This randomised controlled trial included newly diagnosed patients with curable cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic and melanoma) from four Dutch hospitals. Primary outcome is perceived SDM and secondary outcomes are information provision and self‐efficacy. Results One hundred fifty‐four patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) – female: 75%, mean age: 61 (SD ± 11.9). In the intervention group, 80.5% (n = 62) had a TOC, of which 82.3% (n = 51) took place after treatment decision. Perceived SDM was lower in the intervention group (−8.9 [95% CI: 0.6–17.1]). Among those with a TOC before treatment decision (n = 11), perceived SDM was comparable to the control group (66.5 ± 27.2 vs. 67.9 ± 26.1). Conclusion Even though patients are motivated to have a TOC, implementing a TOC between diagnosis and treatment decision is challenging. Effects of a timely TOC could not be established. Non‐timely TOC decreased perceived SDM. Planning of the TOC should be optimised, and future research should establish if adequately timed TOC results in improved SDM in cancer patients.

Objective Cancer patients are increasingly involved in decision‐making for cancer treatment. General practitioners' (GPs) support in this process is advocated. Therefore, GPs need to be aware of patients' treatment decision‐making process and their potential role. We aim to understand the treatment decision‐making process and to explore the added value of GP involvement, from the perspective of cancer patients treated with curative intent. Methods An explorative qualitative study was performed. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 20 purposively sampled Dutch cancer patients treated with curative intent. Results Patients' treatment decision‐making process was dominated by a focus on ‘safeguarding survival’. Patients generally followed the treatment plan as proposed by their physician and did not always experience having a treatment choice. The majority of patients expressed added value for GP involvement, mainly to provide psychological support, but also for providing shared decision‐making (SDM) support. Conclusion The treatment decision‐making process of cancer patients treated with curative intent is dominated by the urge to ‘safeguard survival’. GPs should be aware of their added value in providing psychological support and their potential role to support SDM following a cancer diagnosis.