Display options
Cite
Han PK, Hootsmans N, Neilson M, et al. The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003226doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003226.
Han, P. K., Hootsmans, N., Neilson, M., Roy, B., Kungel, T., Gutheil, C., Diefenbach, M., & Hansen, M. (2013). The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer. BMJ open, 3(9), e003226. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003226
Han, Paul K J, et al. "The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer." BMJ open vol. 3,9 (2013): e003226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003226
Han PK, Hootsmans N, Neilson M, Roy B, Kungel T, Gutheil C, Diefenbach M, Hansen M. The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer. BMJ Open. 2013 Sep 13;3(9):e003226. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003226. PMID: 24038007; PMCID: PMC3773630.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMJ Open. 2013 Sep 13;3(9):e003226. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003226.

The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer.

BMJ open

Paul K J Han, Norbert Hootsmans, Michael Neilson, Bethany Roy, Terence Kungel, Caitlin Gutheil, Michael Diefenbach, Moritz Hansen

Affiliations

  1. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA.

PMID: 24038007 PMCID: PMC3773630 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003226

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of patients with prostate cancer with risk information and their perceptions of the value of personalised risk information in treatment decisions.

DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups. Semistructured interviews explored participants' experiences with using risk information, and their perceptions of the potential value of personalised risk information produced by clinical prediction models.

PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking patients, ages 54-82, diagnosed with prostate cancer within the past 3 years, residing in rural and non-rural geographic locations in Maine (USA), and attending prostate cancer patient support groups.

SETTING: 6 focus groups were conducted with 27 patients; separate groups were held for patients with low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk disease defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

RESULTS: Several participants reported receiving risk information that was imprecise rather than precise, qualitative rather than quantitative, indirect rather than direct and focused on biomarker values rather than clinical outcomes. Some participants felt that personalised risk information could be useful in helping them make better informed decisions, but expressed scepticism about its value. Many participants favoured decision-making strategies that were heuristic-based and intuitive rather than risk-based and deliberative, and perceived other forms of evidence-emotions, recommendations of trusted physicians, personal narratives-as more reliable and valuable in treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prostate cancer appear to have little experience using personalised risk information, may favour heuristic-based over risk-based decision-making strategies and may perceive personalised risk information as less valuable than other types of evidence. These decision-making approaches and perceptions represent potential barriers to the clinical use of personalised risk information. Overcoming these barriers will require providing patients with greater exposure to risk information, education about the nature and value of personalised risk information and training in deliberative decision-making strategies. More research is needed to confirm these findings and address these needs.

Keywords: HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT; ONCOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

References

  1. Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1101-18 - PubMed
  2. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007 Nov;8(2):53-96 - PubMed
  3. BMJ. 1995 Jul 29;311(7000):299-302 - PubMed
  4. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001 Nov;49(11):1505-11 - PubMed
  5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 05;(10):CD001431 - PubMed
  6. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526-35 - PubMed
  7. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jun;133(2):553-61 - PubMed
  8. J Urol. 2008 Jun;179(6):2207-10; discussion 2210-1 - PubMed
  9. Health Psychol. 2005 Jul;24(4S):S35-40 - PubMed
  10. Science. 2011 Sep 9;333(6048):1393-400 - PubMed
  11. Med Decis Making. 2012 Nov-Dec;32(6):840-50 - PubMed
  12. Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):696-713 - PubMed
  13. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Mar;60(3):301-12 - PubMed
  14. Med Decis Making. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(4):675-92 - PubMed
  15. Med Decis Making. 2013 Jan;33(1):4-13 - PubMed
  16. Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Apr;64(2):169-90 - PubMed
  17. Med Decis Making. 2009 May-Jun;29(3):391-403 - PubMed
  18. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Aug 5;149(3):200-3 - PubMed
  19. Health Psychol. 2008 Jan;27(1):110-5 - PubMed
  20. J Cancer Educ. 2009;24(3):194-9 - PubMed
  21. Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):37S-49S - PubMed
  22. Med Decis Making. 2005 May-Jun;25(3):301-7 - PubMed
  23. Cancer. 2008 Dec 1;113(11):3075-99 - PubMed
  24. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;(2):CD001865 - PubMed
  25. N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 1;366(9):780-1 - PubMed
  26. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Nov-Dec;59(6):379-90 - PubMed
  27. Psychooncology. 2006 Nov;15(11):1001-13 - PubMed
  28. Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Feb;70(1 Suppl):14S-36S - PubMed
  29. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):980-91 - PubMed
  30. BMC Cancer. 2009 Apr 28;9:127 - PubMed
  31. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;(3):CD006776 - PubMed
  32. Cancer. 2008 Dec 1;113(11):3062-6 - PubMed
  33. BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):703-9 - PubMed
  34. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Apr;70(7):1019-25 - PubMed
  35. Eur Urol. 2010 Nov;58(5):687-700 - PubMed
  36. Eff Clin Pract. 2002 Jan-Feb;5(1):35-40 - PubMed
  37. Psychol Bull. 2009 Nov;135(6):943-73 - PubMed
  38. Med Decis Making. 2000 Jul-Sep;20(3):290-7 - PubMed
  39. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 1;127(11):966-72 - PubMed
  40. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1834-41 - PubMed
  41. Cancer. 2009 Jul 1;115(13 Suppl):3107-11 - PubMed
  42. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1361-7 - PubMed
  43. Risk Anal. 2009 Feb;29(2):267-87 - PubMed
  44. Health Psychol. 2009 Mar;28(2):210-6 - PubMed
  45. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2011 Dec 13;369(1956):4730-50 - PubMed
  46. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31 - PubMed
  47. Cancer. 2008 Dec 15;113(12):3382-90 - PubMed
  48. Med Decis Making. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):828-38 - PubMed
  49. Med Decis Making. 2010 Nov-Dec;30(6):701-11 - PubMed
  50. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Mar 6;156(5):340-9 - PubMed
  51. Med Decis Making. 2008 Nov-Dec;28(6):850-65 - PubMed
  52. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Aug 20;25(24):3563-4 - PubMed
  53. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 May;91(2):154-60 - PubMed
  54. Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):37-44 - PubMed
  55. Soc Sci Med. 2008 Dec;67(12):2079-88 - PubMed
  56. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Dec;79(6):995-1006 - PubMed
  57. Med Decis Making. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):464-73 - PubMed
  58. Health Expect. 2009 Mar;12(1):4-17 - PubMed
  59. Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):67-80 - PubMed
  60. J Urol. 2006 Jan;175(1):99-103 - PubMed

Publication Types