Search

PURPOSE We conducted a study to understand primary care physician (PCP) and urologist perspectives on determinants of active surveillance care delivery for men with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS We conducted in-depth, semistructured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 19 PCPs and 15 urologists between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the behavioral theory-informed Theoretical Domains Framework to understand barriers to and facilitators of active surveillance care delivery. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into framework domains and constructs by 3 independent coders. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. RESULTS Our study included 19 PCPs (9 female; 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers) and 15 urologists (3 female; 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers). The most commonly reported Theoretical Domains Framework domains affecting active surveillance care were (1) knowledge and (2) environmental context and resources. Although urologists were knowledgeable about active surveillance, PCPs mentioned limitations in their understanding of active surveillance (eg, what follow-up entails). Both groups noted the importance of an informed patient, especially how a patient's understanding of active surveillance facilitates their receipt of recommended follow-up. Physicians viewed patient loss to follow-up as a barrier, but identified a favorable organizational culture/climate (eg, good communication between physicians) as a facilitator. CONCLUSIONS With patients increasingly involving their PCPs in their cancer care, our study presents factors both PCPs and urologists perceive (or identify) as affecting optimal active surveillance care delivery. We provide insights that can help inform multilevel supportive interventions for patients, physicians, and organizations to ensure the success of active surveillance as a management strategy for low-risk prostate cancer. Key words: behavior change; implementation; primary health care; prostatic neoplasms; urologists; surveillance; interdisciplinary communication; patient care team; continuity of care; coordination of care; qualitative research, INTRODUCTION For men with low-risk prostate cancer, national guidelines, such as those of the American Urological Association and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, recommend active surveillance as the primary [...]

PurposeWe aimed to compare patient-reported mental health outcomes for men undergoing treatment for localized prostate cancer longitudinally over 5 years.Materials and methodsWe conducted a prospective population-based analysis using the Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation (CEASAR) study. Patient-reported depressive symptoms (Centers for Epidemiologic Studies Depression [CES-D]) and domains of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey evaluating emotional well-being and energy/fatigue were assessed through 5 years after treatment with surgery, radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) and active surveillance. Regression models were adjusted for outcome-specific baseline function, demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment approach.ResultsA total of 2,742 men (median [quartiles] age 64 [59-70]) met inclusion criteria. Baseline depressive symptoms, as measured by the CES-D, were low (median 4, quartiles 1-8) without differences between groups. We found no effect of treatment modality on depressive symptoms (p=0.78), though older age, poorer health, being unmarried and baseline CES-D score were associated with declines in mental health. There was no clinically meaningful association between treatment modality and scores for either emotional well-being (p=0.81) or energy/fatigue (p=0.054).ConclusionsThis prospective, population-based cohort study of men with localized prostate cancer showed no clinically important differences in mental health outcomes including depressive symptoms, emotional well-being, and energy/fatigue according to the treatment received (surgery, radiotherapy, or surveillance). However, we identified a number of characteristics associated with worse mental health outcomes including: older age, poorer health, being unmarried, and baseline CES-D score which may allow for early identification of patients most at risk of these outcomes following treatment.

Aims: Overactive bladder management includes multiple therapeutic options with comparable efficacy but a range of administration modalities and side effects, creating an ideal setting for shared decision‐making. This study investigates patient and physician health beliefs surrounding decision‐making and expectations for overactive bladder with the aim of better understanding and ultimately improving decision‐making in overactive bladder care. Methods: Patient and physician participants completed a questionnaire followed by a semi‐structured interview to assess health beliefs surrounding decision making and expectations for overactive bladder treatment. The semi‐structured interview guide, developed in an iterative fashion by the authors, probed qualities of overactive bladder therapies patients and physicians valued, their process of treatment selection, and their experiences with therapies. Results: Patients (n = 20) frequently cited treatment invasiveness, efficacy, and safety as the most important qualities that influenced their decision when selecting overactive bladder therapy. Physicians (n = 12) frequently cited safety/contraindications, convenience, cost/insurance, and patient preference as the most important qualities. In our integration analysis, we identified four key themes associated with decision making in overactive bladder care: frustration with inaccessibility of overactive bladder treatments, discordant perception of patient education, diverging acceptability of expected outcomes, and lack of insight into other parties' decisional priorities and control preferences. Conclusions: While both patients and physicians desire to engage in a shared decision‐making process when selecting therapies for overactive bladder, this process is challenged by significant divergence between patient and physician viewpoint across key domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]