Factors that predict treatment choice and satisfaction with the decision in men with localized prostate cancer

被引:45
|
作者
Berry, Donna L.
Ellis, William J.
Russell, Kenneth J.
Blasko, John C.
Bush, Nigel
Blumenstein, Brent
Lange, Paul H.
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Seattle Prostate Inst, Seattle, WA USA
[3] TriArc Consulting, Seattle, WA USA
[4] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Canc Informat Serv, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
关键词
decision-making; recursive partitioning;
D O I
10.3816/CGC.2006.n.040
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (LPC) often have the opportunity to participate in the treatment choice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate relationships between influential factors on treatment choice and the decision-related outcomes of decisional conflict and satisfaction. Patients and Methods: This report presents data from 260 men diagnosed with LPC who were identified by their clinicians as having a choice of treatments. Men completed questionnaires at home within 2 weeks of the informational clinic visit with the clinician, but before treatment. The respondent sample had a mean age of 63.2 years (standard deviation, 8.1 years); the majority were married/partnered (82.7%), working (51.5%), white (93.8%), and educated at the collegiate level (83.8%). Personal factors (information, influential people, and outcomes), treatment choice, and decisional conflict and satisfaction with the decision (SWD) were queried. Relationships between all variables and the outcomes, SWD, and treatment choice were explored using exhaustive chi(2) automatic interaction detector. Results: The strongest predictor partition variable for SWD was the subscale "factors contributing to uncertainty" (adjusted P < 0.0001) followed by the Trait Anxiety score (adjusted P = 0.0388). The strongest predictive partition for the actual treatment choice was age group (adjusted P < 0.0001), followed by interacting marital status (adjusted P = 0.0003), influence of the urologist (adjusted P = 0.0008), and use of the Internet (adjusted P = 0.0479). Men with LPC were more satisfied with their treatment choice when they reported fewer uncertainty factors; these are factors mainly relevant to information needed to understand the pros and cons and to make a decision. Consistent with this finding for treatment choice is the use of the Internet, though this factor interacted with age, the influence of their surgeon, and marital status. Conclusion: This study suggests that personally meaningful information communicated between patients and clinicians is paramount.
引用
收藏
页码:219 / 226
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] What Is a "Good" Treatment Decision? Decisional Control, Knowledge, Treatment Decision Making, and Quality of Life in Men with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer
    Orom, Heather
    Biddle, Caitlin
    Underwood, Willie
    Nelson, Christian J.
    Homish, D. Lynn
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2016, 36 (06) : 714 - 725
  • [42] Factors influencing prostate brachytherapy treatment and isotope choice for men with prostate cancer: A descriptive analysis from capsuretm
    Lee, WR
    Salem, W
    Sharkey, J
    Cowan, JE
    Duchane, J
    Carroll, PR
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2006, 175 (04): : 365 - 365
  • [43] Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer
    Tallman, Jacob E. E.
    Wallis, Christopher J. D.
    Zhao, Zhiguo
    Huang, Li-Ching
    Penson, David F. F.
    Koyama, Tatsuki
    Goodman, Michael
    Hamilton, Ann S. S.
    Wu, Xiao-Cheng
    Paddock, Lisa E. E.
    Stroup, Antoinette
    Cooperberg, Matthew R. R.
    Hashibe, Mia
    O'Neil, Brock B. B.
    Kaplan, Sherrie H. H.
    Greenfield, Sheldon
    Hoffman, Karen E. E.
    Barocas, Daniel A. A.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2023, 26 (04) : 787 - 794
  • [44] Prostate volume, baseline urinary function, and their association with treatment choice and post-treatment urinary function in men treated for localized prostate cancer
    Jacob E. Tallman
    Christopher J. D. Wallis
    Zhiguo Zhao
    Li-Ching Huang
    David F. Penson
    Tatsuki Koyama
    Michael Goodman
    Ann S. Hamilton
    Xiao-Cheng Wu
    Lisa E. Paddock
    Antoinette Stroup
    Matthew R. Cooperberg
    Mia Hashibe
    Brock B. O’Neil
    Sherrie H. Kaplan
    Sheldon Greenfield
    Karen E. Hoffman
    Daniel A. Barocas
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2023, 26 : 787 - 794
  • [45] Questioning decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer
    Daniel J. Cher
    Michael W. Kattan
    Mark E. Cowen
    Brian J. Miles
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1997, 12 : 659 - 659
  • [46] Questioning decision analysis for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer
    Cher, DJ
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 12 (10) : 659 - 659
  • [47] Factors Affecting Quality of Life at Different Intervals After Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer: Unique Influence of Treatment Decision Making Satisfaction, Personality and Sexual Functioning
    Victorson, David E.
    Schuette, Stephanie
    Schalet, Benjamin D.
    Kundu, Shilajit D.
    Helfand, Brian T.
    Novakovic, Kristian
    Sufrin, Nathaniel
    McGuire, Michael
    Brendler, Charles
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 196 (05): : 1422 - 1428
  • [48] Sources of Information for Learning and Decision-Making in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer
    Chhatre, Sumedha
    Wittink, Marsha N.
    Gallo, Joseph J.
    Jayadevappa, Ravishankar
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MENS HEALTH, 2020, 14 (05)
  • [49] The impact of treatment choice for localized prostate cancer on response to phosphodiesterase inhibitors
    Lee, Irwin H.
    Sadetsky, Natalia
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Sandler, Howard M.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 179 (03): : 1072 - 1076
  • [50] Prospective study of men's psychological and decision-related adjustment after treatment for localized prostate cancer
    Steginga, SK
    Occhipinti, S
    Gardiner, RA
    Yaxley, J
    Heathcote, P
    UROLOGY, 2004, 63 (04) : 751 - 756