Patient and physician decision-making dynamics in overactive bladder care: A mixed methods study.

AIMS: Overactive bladder management includes multiple therapeutic options with comparable efficacy but a range of administration modalities and side effects, creating an ideal setting for shared decision-making. This study investigates patient and physician health beliefs surrounding decision-making and expectations for overactive bladder with the aim of better understanding and ultimately improving decision-making in overactive bladder care. METHODS: Patient and physician participants completed a questionnaire followed by a semi-structured interview to assess health beliefs surrounding decision making and expectations for overactive bladder treatment. The semi-structured interview guide, developed in an iterative fashion by the authors, probed qualities of overactive bladder therapies patients and physicians valued, their process of treatment selection, and their experiences with therapies. RESULTS: Patients (n = 20) frequently cited treatment invasiveness, efficacy, and safety as the most important qualities that influenced their decision when selecting overactive bladder therapy. Physicians (n = 12) frequently cited safety/contraindications, convenience, cost/insurance, and patient preference as the most important qualities. In our integration analysis, we identified four key themes associated with decision making in overactive bladder care: frustration with inaccessibility of overactive bladder treatments, discordant perception of patient education, diverging acceptability of expected outcomes, and lack of insight into other parties' decisional priorities and control preferences. CONCLUSIONS: While both patients and physicians desire to engage in a shared decision-making process when selecting therapies for overactive bladder, this process is challenged by significant divergence between patient and physician viewpoint across key domains.

"There is a lot of shame that comes with this": A qualitative study of patient experiences of isolation, embarrassment, and stigma associated with overactive bladder.

AIMS: Beyond causing physical discomfort, overactive bladder (OAB) is distressing to patients across a variety of psychosocial domains. In this qualitative component of a larger mixed methods study, we explore patients' lived experience with OAB to understand how this condition impacts individuals on a personal and social level, as well as their experiences interacting with the health care system. METHODS: A total of 20 patients and 12 physicians completed a questionnaire and semi-structured interview. The interview guide, developed in an iterative fashion by the authors, included questions about treatment decision making as well as experiences living with or treating OAB; this manuscript focuses on the questions probing lived experiences and interactions between patients and physicians. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and inductively coded and analyzed according to the principles of interpretive description to develop themes. RESULTS: Analysis of patient and physician interviews yielded five key themes: isolation due to OAB diagnosis, social stigma associated with noticeable OAB symptoms, embarrassment from interactions with the health care system, feeling invalidated and dismissed by physicians, and OAB patients as a "vulnerable" population with "desperation" for cure. CONCLUSIONS: OAB causes patients marked distress beyond their physical symptoms; it causes feelings of isolation from friends and family and makes them feel embarrassed to discuss their condition with loved ones and physicians alike. Efforts to destigmatize OAB, validate patient experiences, and improve access to OAB care may help diminish the psychosocial burden of OAB.

Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Family Communication Into Survivorship After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine receipt of genetic testing and communication with relatives about results into survivorship after diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: Women age 20-79 years diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer in 2014-2015 and reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles County SEER registries were surveyed approximately 7 months and 6 years after diagnosis (n = 1,412). We asked about genetic counseling, testing, and communication with relatives about results. We categorized women into indications for testing on the basis of clinical guidelines at the time of diagnosis and at the time of the follow-up survey (FUPs). RESULTS: A total of 47.4% had indications for genetic testing at any time: 28.0% at baseline and an additional 19.4% at the time of the FUPs (only); 71.9% (95% CI, 67.4 to 76.4) of those with a baseline indication reported genetic testing versus 53.3% (95% CI, 47.3 to 59.2) with an indication at FUPs only and 35.0% (95% CI, 31.6 to 38.4) with no indication (P < .001). There were no significant racial or ethnic differences in receipt of testing, controlling for age and clinical indications (P = .239); results for genetic counseling were similar. Only 3.4% of survivors had direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCt) for cancer. Testers who reported a pathogenic variant (n = 62) were much more likely to have talked to most or all their first-degree adult relatives about genetic testing than those with a variant of unknown significance (n = 49) or a negative finding (n = 419): 62.7% versus 38.8% and 38.0%, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Many women with indications for genetic counseling and testing into survivorship do not receive it. But those tested reach out to family members on the basis of the clinical relevance of their results. Very few patients obtained DTCt, which suggests that these tests do not substitute for clinical testing in breast cancer survivors.