A team from Dartmouth and the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation* published a paper in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, “Decision-Making Process Reported by Medicare Patients Who Had Coronary Artery Stenting or Surgery for Prostate Cancer.”
It describes a survey of Medicare patients who had surgery for prostate cancer or stents put in place for coronary artery disease.
Results:
The majority (64%) of prostate cancer surgery patients reported that at least one alternative to surgery was presented as a serious option. Almost all (94%) said they and their doctors discussed the pros, and 63% said they discussed the cons of surgery “a lot” or “some”. Most (76%) said they were asked about their treatment preferences. Few who received stents said they were presented with options to seriously consider (10%). While most (77%) reported talking with doctors about the reasons for stents “a lot” or “some”, few (19%) reported talking about the cons. Only 16% said they were asked about their treatment preferences.
Conclusions:
While prostate cancer surgery patients reported more involvement in decision making than elective stent patients, the reports of both groups document the need for increased efforts to inform and involve patients facing preference-sensitive intervention decisions.
Discussion:
One possible reason for limited discussion is that many stent procedures are done in conjunction with a diagnostic angiogram, limiting the opportunities for discussion. A possible reason those with angina symptoms report a better decision process is that they may have been interacting with physicians about possible options over a longer period of time. However, given the frequency with which stents are placed when angiograms are performed, we would argue that a discussion of the potential decision to insert a stent should be a routine part of the decision to perform a diagnostic angiogram. Another explanation comes from recent focus groups with cardiologists. While the cardiologists knew that existing clinical studies had found no survival benefit for those with stable angina, many were still convinced of the benefits of PCI (ed. note: percutaneous coronary intervention – an umbrella term that includes stents), even for asymptomatic patients.
Efforts to improve decision making should continue to focus on increasing patient involvement, but we also think increasing the involvement of primary care providers when decisions are being made would be beneficial. Fewer than three percent of respondents said their primary care provider played a major role in their decisions. Because primary care providers are likely to be less predisposed to a specific treatment than specialists, they may provide more balanced information and may increase the likelihood that conservative options are considered. In addition, there is evidence that patients believe that important decisions are best carried out with their primary care providers. As patient-centered medical homes become robust centers for care coordination it should become more common for patients to rely on that setting for information and guidance when facing decisions. The results also point to the potential value of decision aids: routinely providing patients with unbiased, balanced material in print, DVD or web-based form would be a major step to ensure that patients know all the reasonable options and the pros and cons of each.The implementation of the primary care medical home should bring more involvement of primary care physicians in decisions about interventions and increase the likelihood that patients facing major decisions will understand all their options and have their voices heard. The routine use of decision aids would also increase patients’ information about options, though not necessarily their involvement in decisions. … Meanwhile, these data provide a challenge and a baseline against which to measure the progress that is very much needed.
* That Foundation supports my web publishing efforts but has no editorial control over what I publish.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like