Patients' health locus of control and preferences about the role that they want to play in the medical decision-making process.

Health locus of control (HLOC) may influence people's behavior regarding their health as well as their desires to be involved in the medical decision-making. Our study aimed to examine HLOC's relations with people's control preferences about the medical decision-making. A total of 153 people filled out the self-administered version of the Control Preference Scale and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale - form C. The most preferred role is the collaborative one. However, HLOC explained heterogeneity in people's control preferences: lower scores in external HLOC were related to a greater preference for the active and the collaborative role. From the personalized medicine perspective, an accurate evaluation of the patient's HLOC could help tailoring the decision-making process within the clinical context.

Suicide-risk-related factors in a psychiatric patient cohort: a cross sectional study on outpatients, inpatients, and therapeutic community patients.

BACKGROUND: Suicide constitutes a significant global health concern. Joiner's interpersonal-psychological theory of suicide focuses on three variables: Thwarted Belongingness (TB), Perceived Burdensomeness (PB) and Acquired Capability for Suicide. METHODS: A sample of 90 psychiatric patients, comprising outpatients, inpatients and individuals residing in therapeutic communities, was recruited between 2021 and 2022. Scales measuring anxiety, depression, mental pain, reasons for living, TB, PB and fearlessness about death were administered. Patients with and without suicidal ideation (SI), as well as those with and without history of suicide attempt (SA) were compared and two stepwise logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: Both patients with SI and with SA had higher anxiety, depression, mental pain, PB, fearlessness about death and lower self-esteem. Notably, depression, PB and beliefs about coping strategies were strongly associated with SI, while higher fearlessness about death and PB were strongly linked to history of SA. Additionally, inpatients and therapeutic community patients were at higher risk of suicide and had higher levels of depression compared to outpatients. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size and the inclusion of patients with mixed psychiatric diagnoses limit the generalizability of the findings. The cross-sectional design hinders causal hypotheses about the relationship between current SI or past SA and potential risk factors. The use of self-report measures entails biases. The analyses did not include details about pharmacological treatments. CONCLUSIONS: SA history could be explained by fearlessness about death. Improving the ability to cope with suicidal thoughts constitutes a pivotal component of therapeutic interventions with suicidal patients.

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Qualitative Study Protocol Among Advanced Lung Cancer Patients.

Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey. Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.

Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatments: A Study Protocol for a Preference Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment and Swing Weighting.

Background: Advanced treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consist of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of both. Decisions surrounding NSCLC can be considered as preference-sensitive because multiple treatments exist that vary in terms of mode of administration, treatment schedules, and benefit-risk profiles. As part of the IMI PREFER project, we developed a protocol for an online preference survey for NSCLC patients exploring differences in preferences according to patient characteristics (preference heterogeneity). Moreover, this study will evaluate and compare the use of two different preference elicitation methods, the discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the swing weighting (SW) task. Finally, the study explores how demographic (i.e., age, gender, and educational level) and clinical (i.e., cancer stage and line of treatment) information, health literacy, health locus of control, and quality of life may influence or explain patient preferences and the usefulness of a digital interactive tool in providing information on preference elicitation tasks according to patients. Methods: An online survey will be implemented with the aim to recruit 510 NSCLC patients in Belgium and Italy. Participants will be randomized 50:50 to first receive either the DCE or the SW. The survey will also collect information on participants' disease-related status, health locus of control, health literacy, quality of life, and perception of the educational tool. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps to quantitatively elicit and study patient preferences for NSCLC treatment alternatives. Results from this study will increase the understanding of which treatment aspects are most valued by NSCLC patients to inform decision-making in drug development, regulatory approval, and reimbursement. Methodologically, the comparison between the DCE and the SW task will be valuable to gain information on how these preference methods perform against each other in eliciting patient preferences. Overall, this protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing quantitative patient preferences into decision-making along the medical product life cycle.

Sexism Interacts with Patient-Physician Gender Concordance in Influencing Patient Control Preferences: Findings from a Vignette Experimental Design.

BACKGROUND: Patient preferences regarding their involvement in shared treatments decisions is fundamental in clinical practice. Previous evidences demonstrated a large heterogeneity in these preferences. However, only few studies have analysed the influence of patients' individual differences, contextual and situational qualities, and their complex interaction in explaining this variability. METHODS: We assessed the role of the interaction of patient's sociodemographic and psychological factors with a physician's gender. Specifically, we focused on patient gender and attitudes toward male or female physicians. One hundred fifty-three people participated in this randomised controlled study and were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions in which they were asked to imagine discussing their treatment with a male and a female doctor. RESULTS: Analyses showed an interplay between attitude towards women and the gender of patients and doctors, explaining interindividual variability in patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, patients' attitudes toward the physicians' gender constitutes a relevant characteristic that may influence the degree of control patients want to have and the overall patient-physician relationship.

Patient Preferences as Guidance for Information Framing in a Medical Shared Decision-Making Approach: The Bridge Between Nudging and Patient Preferences.

Guidelines and policies support the decision process to make sure that patients can benefit from the best treatment for their condition. The implementation of guidelines and policies is evolving, allowing decision makers to be able to choose between alternatives while considering the effect of biases and fallacies that may hinder their choice. Patient preferences play a precious role in those decisions in which is not possible to recognize an objective "best" alternative and it's not possible to nudge them toward one alternative based on scientific evidence and clinical experience. Having patient input as part of the decision process itself would allow the recognition of the attributes related to what is relevant for patients, which can be considered as important as clinical data. The authors advocate that the integration of preference-sensitive attributes with decision policies could provide a benefit against fallacies in the decision process when there is not a "best" alternative, and a shared decision-making paradigm allows both patient and clinician to recognize and pursue the option that best fits the individual case.

The patient perspective: investigating patient empowerment enablers and barriers within the oncological care process.

Patient empowerment is a multi-factorial concept and its relevance has led to a growing body of literature; despite this attention, there is still no agreement regarding the elements that define its expression. While several studies have already investigated the positive effect of empowerment interventions on the care process outcome, the aim of this study is to investigate which factors can foster an empowered management of the cancer condition from the patient's perspective. To examine patients' perception of empowerment enablers, we asked for participants' input on the role of three factors frequently cited as positively affected by empowerment: care quality, perception of direct control and relationships within the care context, during the care process. Three focus groups were conducted with 34 cancer patients. The results highlight the perception of direct control on their treatment as the least valued element (2.87, SD 0.566) when compared with care quality (3.75, SD 0.649) and relational support in the care context (3.91, SD 0.274). Unlike traditional approaches to empowerment, patient's expression of empowerment does not mainly reside in the direct control of their condition as much as in an active role within the relationship with caretakers, such as the ability to choose the doctor, the care team or the health organisation in charge of their healthcare. Emerging aspects from this analysis of patient's perspective are central in order to adequately consider empowerment in the care process and to provide more effective care strategies.

Empowerment from patient's and caregiver's perspective in cancer care.

The caregivers' perceptions of the patients' health condition may be biased and induce them to perceive higher needs than patients actually disclose. Our aim was to assess if the level of knowledge and awareness about cancer disease and treatment, and patient participation and assistance differs between caregivers and patients. A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted across five countries (Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, France and Germany) on a total of 510 participants who directly (patient) or indirectly (caregiver) faced a cancer diagnosis. Investigating this divergence could help to identify possible difficulties in patient-caregiver relationship, eventually improving patient empowerment.