Exploring the Important Determinants Shaping Treatment Preferences: Qualitative Insights into Breast Cancer Patient Experiences and Perspectives in New Zealand.

Purpose: Despite the importance of acknowledging patient preferences in treatment decision-making, little is known about the treatment preferences and the factors underlying those preferences of breast cancer patients. This study aims explore patient experience and perspective regarding treatment preferences and identify the important determinants that shape these preferences in the context of New Zealand. Patients and Methods: Semi-structured online interviews comprised of six focus group discussions and five individual interviews were performed with 26 breast cancer patients. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis approach. Results: Four main themes were derived: (1) positive treatment outcomes; (2) the negative impact of treatment-related side effects on quality of life; (3) treatment accessibility, availability, and timeliness; (4) cost of treatment. Patients revealed a strong preference towards treatments that yield longer survival, achieve remission, and prevent cancer recurrence. Additionally, patients favored treatments with minimal side effects that had minimal impact on their quality of life. There was a notable preference for treatments that were easily accessible and available in a timely manner. However, patients faced challenging decisions in balancing the costs of treatments with their benefits, leading to a consistent preference for treatments supported by government funding or medical insurance to alleviate financial burdens. Conclusion: Our study reveals that breast cancer patients in New Zealand have different perceptions and preferences regarding cancer treatment. Patients frequently find themselves making trade-offs among various attributes of a treatment, aligning these decisions with their personal values and beliefs. By considering these preferences and trade-offs in future studies that measure patient preferences, healthcare professionals can enhance their support for patients in making informed choices that align with their values and priorities. Additionally, healthcare policymakers can develop patient-centered policies that cater to the unique needs and preferences of breast cancer patients.

Understanding Patient Preferences Regarding the Important Determinants of Breast Cancer Treatment: A Narrative Scoping Review.

Objective: Conventionally, optimal treatment strategies for breast cancer have been largely determined by physicians, with a scant understanding of patients' treatment values and preferences. Incorporating patient preferences in the decision-making process for breast cancer treatment is gaining recognition and can potentially improve treatment outcomes and compliance. This scoping review aims to synthesize evidence on the key determinants that are most valued by breast cancer patients when deciding on their treatment options. Methods: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and CINAHL Plus) utilizing a systematic scoping review method. Two reviewers independently screened, applied inclusion criteria, reviewed, and synthesized findings. A mixed-method narrative approach combining the inductive thematic analysis and content analysis methodologies was used to synthesize and summarize the findings. Results: The review included 22 studies, leading to the conceptualization of 5 overarching themes and 17 sub-themes. Among these, the most frequently cited theme was treatment benefits, followed by treatment-related process, treatment-related risk, quality of life, and cost of treatment. Women with breast cancer highly value treatments that offer good effectiveness, prolong survival, prevent recurrence, and maintain quality of life. Patient concerns include treatment-related side effects, safety, the risk of secondary cancer, and direct or indirect out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, patients also consider treatment duration, mode of administration, physician recommendation, and treatment availability and accessibility when deciding on their preferred treatment. Conclusion: The evidence synthesized in this review offers insights into refining breast cancer treatment strategies to align more closely with patient values. Recognizing and integrating patient perspectives in breast cancer care could potentially lead to improved treatment outcomes, enhanced patient compliance, and more personalized care. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to incorporate these key determinants in their treatment decision-making processes, aiming to deliver a patient-centered care that aligns with the unique preferences and values of each patient.

What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Optimal care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients entails regular assessment of disease activity and appropriate adjustment of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) until a predefined treatment goal is achieved. This raises questions about the approach to treatment decision making among RA patients and their preference for associated treatment changes. We aimed to systematically identify and synthesize the available evidence of RA patients' preferences regarding DMARD modification with an emphasis on escalating, tapering, stopping, or switching of DMARDs. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to gauge the breadth of evidence from the range of studies relating to RA patients' preferences for DMARD modification. Pertinent databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1988 and 2019. Conventional content analysis was applied to generate themes about how patients perceive changes to their RA treatment. RESULTS: Of the 1730 distinct articles identified, 32 were included for review. Eight studies investigated RA patients' perceptions of switching to other DMARDs, 18 studies reported RA patients' preferences for escalating treatment, and six studies explored the possibility of tapering or stopping of biologic DMARDs. Four overarching themes relating to RA patients' preferences for treatment modification were identified: (i) patient satisfaction, (ii) patients' beliefs, (iii) information needs, and (iv) patient-clinician relationships. CONCLUSION: Uptake of treatment changes in clinical practice can be improved by understanding how RA patients approach the decision to modify their treatment and how this relates to their satisfaction, beliefs, information needs, and relationships with clinicians. Future work is needed to systematically determine the significance of these factors in RA patients' decision-making processes.

Tapering Biologic Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Biologic therapies are cost effective for active rheumatoid arthritis but have adverse effects and are costly. Tapering of biologics is emerging as an important consideration when sustained remission is achieved. Recent trials have highlighted the clinical feasibility of tapering, but there is little evidence on how proposed tapering would be received by patients. The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing hypothetical decisions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis on tapering their biologics and their perspectives on remission and flare when considering the possibility of tapering. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis with diverse experiences of biologics with different modes of administration were purposively sampled to participate in one of six focus groups (n = 43) or an individual interview (n = 2). Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five overarching themes on what influences a participant's decision to taper their biologic were identified. First, participants were fearful of uncertain outcomes of tapering, especially flare and joint damage. Second, participants prioritized quality of life from continuing biologics over the risk of adverse effects. Third, tapering biologics was seen as providing relief from the inconvenience of taking biologics regularly. Fourth, participants wanted assurance of prompt access to healthcare if their rheumatoid arthritis were to flare when tapering. Fifth, preferences for involvement in decision making varied, but fulfilling information needs was desired to aid a patient's preferred role in decision making on tapering. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides novel insight into the perspectives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis on tapering biologics when sustained remission is achieved at a crucial juncture in global affordability for healthcare systems. These patient perspectives can inform the planning of decision aids and clinical trials of decision-making processes when tapering is proposed.

Tapering biologic therapy for people with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: A review of patient perspectives and associated clinical evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Biologic therapies have increased the control of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Questions remain about tapering biologics when remission is achieved in RA. The patient perspective has to be incorporated in pragmatic applications of tapering but is rarely accounted for in clinical studies of tapering. The aim of the present review was to summarize the evidence about RA patient perspectives on biologic tapering. METHODS: We provided a narrative summary of the currently small body of research on patient perspectives retrieved through systematic searches with an emphasis on seeking qualitative research. In addition, we provided an update on relevant clinical research and financial considerations that frame the findings on patient perspectives. RESULTS: Financial considerations around commencing/continuing on biologic therapies in RA vary internationally and have implications for patient perspectives. Recent clinical studies indicate that the benefit of tapering biologic therapy when in remission are predicted by drug concentration and aspects of disease activity, severity and duration. Three major concerns have been identified from studies of patient perspectives on biologic tapering: (a) disease relapse; (b) access to treatment in the case of disease flare when tapering; and (c) local motivation for dose reduction (i.e., driven by funding or health benefit). CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed on tapering biologics, and should include studies of patient perspectives as well as health economic evaluations. Patient decision aids are a potential way of applying clinical and patient-focused evidence to help all parties come to a decision, but require developmental research and pragmatic evaluation.