How does the frame of communication affect cancer patients' decisions?-from a behavioral economics point of view.

BACKGROUND: It has been said that physicians should provide their patients with accurate evidence in terms of information on treatment options. However, in some cases, although the physician provides accurate and sufficient information, the patient still chooses the medically not-recommended treatment. The purpose of this research is to clarify how patients' decisions differ when a physician changes the frame of an explanation when he/she provides information about cancer treatment. METHODS: An online questionnaire survey was conducted in March 2017. Through the aid of a survey company, we emailed questionnaires to 1,360 cancer patients who received treatment within the last 2 years. We randomly assigned participants to 6 hypotheticals scenario of a terminal cancer patient, and presented hypothetical evidence in different ways. Subsequently, we asked survey participants whether they would choose to receive additional anti-cancer treatment. RESULTS: Although there was no statistically significant difference between scenarios, the "social burden" groups showed a lower rate of patients who preferred to continue a medically ineffective anti-cancer treatment than the control group, at a 10% significance level. The scenario significantly affected the patients' sense of abandonment [F(5, 1,354)=5.680, P<0.001], sense of distress [F(5, 1,354)=3.920, P=0.002], and necessity of improvement [F(5, 1,354)=2.783, P=0.017]. CONCLUSIONS: Nudges were not shown to be effective in situations where discontinuation of anticancer treatment was being considered. On the other hand, some nudges were found to be invasive and should be used with caution.

Preferences of bereaved family members on communication with physicians when discontinuing anticancer treatment: referring to the concept of nudges.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to clarify the situation and evaluate the communication on anticancer treatment discontinuation from the viewpoint of a bereaved family, in reference to the concept of nudges. METHODS: A multi-center questionnaire survey was conducted involving 350 bereaved families of patients with cancer admitted to palliative care units in Japan. RESULTS: The following explanations were rated as essential or very useful: (i) treatment would be a physical burden to the patient (42.9%), (ii) providing anticancer treatment was impossible (40.5%), (iii) specific disadvantages of receiving treatment (40.5%), (iv) not receiving treatment would be better for the patient (39.9%) and (v) specific advantages of not receiving treatment (39.6%). The factors associated with a high need for improvement of the physician's explanation included lack of explanation on specific advantages of not receiving treatment (ß = 0.228, P = 0.001), and lack of explanation of 'If the patient's condition improves, you may consider receiving the treatment again at that time.' (ß = 0.189, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Explaining the disadvantages of receiving treatment and the advantages of not receiving treatment, and presenting treatment discontinuation as the default option were effective in helping patients' families in making the decision to discontinue treatment. In particular, explanation regarding specific advantages of not receiving treatment was considered useful, as they caused a lower need for improvement of the physicians' explanation.

Impact of the Threat of COVID-19 Infections on the Perceived Risk to HPV Vaccination.

Vaccination rates for human papillomavirus (HPV) in Japan are significantly lower than other countries, and Japanese people are reluctant to be vaccinated. Repeated daily reports of COVID-19 infections and restrictions have made people more health conscious and aware of the danger of infectious diseases. In this study, we used the health belief model (HBM) to examine perceived threats of cancer and infectious diseases and to ascertain whether the new COVID-19 vaccination in addition to these perceived threats would increase vaccination intention against cervical cancer. We conducted a cluster analysis to classify the segmentation regarding the perceived threat, and a logistic regression analysis to predict factors influencing people accepting vaccination. We received 1257 completed surveys during our research. We classified the participants into six clusters, and the logistic regression analysis indicated eight factors significantly associated with the willingness to get the HPV vaccine: reliable information sources such as doctors and social networking sites (SNS), the recognition of COVID-19 symptoms, the awareness of COVID-19 vaccination, the importance of HPV prevention through vaccination, one's own intention of COVID-19 vaccination, their intention of COVID-19 vaccination toward children, and benefits of HPV vaccination. Further research on HPV and COVID-19 vaccination is encouraged.