The content and amount of information given by medical oncologists when telling patients with advanced cancer what their treatment options are. palliative chemotherapy and watchful-waiting.

This study aimed to determine the content and the amount of information given by medical oncologists when proposing palliative chemotherapy and whether this information given is influenced by patient or physician background characteristics. In a prospective study, 95 patients with incurable cancer were interviewed before they consulted their medical oncologist. Their first consultation was audiotaped, and their eventual decision scored. A coding scheme comprised six categories of information given during the consultation. Medical oncologists mentioned or explained the disease course (53%), symptoms (35%) and prognosis (39%). Most patients were told about the absence of cure (84%). Watchful-waiting was mentioned to only half of the patients, either in one sentence (23%) or explained more extensively (27%). Multilevel analysis revealed that the patients' age, patient's marital status, and consulting in an academic hospital explained 38% of the amount of information given. Most of the physicians' attention is spent on the 'active' treatment option. Older patients, married patients and patients in academic hospitals receive more information.

Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice.

In palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making.

Palliative chemotherapy or watchful waiting? A vignettes study among oncologists.

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences of oncologists for palliative chemotherapy or watchful waiting and the factors considered important to that preference. METHODS: Sixteen vignettes (paper case descriptions), varying on eight patient and treatment characteristics, were designed to assess the oncologists' preferences. Their strength of preference was rated on a 7-point scale. An orthogonal main effects design provided a subset of all possible combinations of the characteristics, allowing estimations of the relative weights of the presented characteristics. A written questionnaire was sent to a random sample of oncologists (N = 1,235). RESULTS: The response rate was 67%, and 697 questionnaires were available for analysis. Eighty-one percent of the respondents were male. The mean age was 46 years. We found considerable variation among the oncologists. No major associations between physician characteristics and preferences were found. Of the patient and treatment characteristics affecting treatment preference, age was the strongest predictor, followed by the patient's wish to be treated and the expected survival gain. Other patient and treatment characteristics had a limited effect on preferences, except for psychologic distress, which had no independent impact. CONCLUSION: Patients will encounter different decisions depending on their oncologists' preferences and their own personal background. Therefore, to ensure adequate information for decision-making processes, decision aids are proposed.

[Joint decisions, how? Physician-patient communication about palliative chemotherapy]. / Gezamenlijk beslissen, hoezo? Arts-patiëntcommunicatie over palliatieve chemotherapie.

The discomfort and benefits of a medical treatment may be appreciated differently by different patients. This is one of the reasons why patients should be informed thoroughly and included in the decision-making about treatment. The obligation to inform was laid down in 1995 in the Decree on the Medical Contract. In a case of metastasized cancer of the prostate it was decided more or less by mutual agreement between doctor and patient to administer palliative chemotherapy. It appeared subsequently that the physician had short-term palliation in mind, and the patient prolongation of survival. Although both are of the opinion that the patient was included actively in the decision-making, this was in reality not at all the case. The question arises whether the Decree on the Medical Contract does not demand too much from certain patients regarding their capacity to make a decision about the treatment of a terminal disease.