Patient Perceptions of Illness Identity in Cancer Clinical Trial Decision-Making.

When patients are diagnosed with cancer, they begin to negotiate their illness identity in relation to their past and future selves, their relationships, and their group memberships. Thus, how patients view their cancer in relation to their other identities may affect how and why they make particular decisions about treatment options. Using the Communication Theory of Identity (CTI), the current study explores: (1) how and why illness identity is framed across identity layers in relation to one particular cancer treatment: participation in a cancer clinical trial (CT); and (2) how and why patients experience identity conflicts while making their treatment decisions. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were analyzed for 46 cancer patients who were offered a CT. Results of a grounded theory analysis indicated that patients expressed separate identity frames (e.g., personal, relational, and communal), aligned identity frames (e.g., personal and communal), and identity conflicts (e.g., personal-personal). This study theoretically shows how and why patient illness identity relates to cancer treatment decision-making as well as how and why patients relate (and conflict) with the cancer communal identity frame. Practical implications include how healthcare providers and family members can support patient decision-making through awareness of and accommodating to identity shifts.

The Role of Health Care Provider and Partner Decisional Support in Patients' Cancer Treatment Decision-Making Satisfaction.

Cancer patients rely on multiple sources of support when making treatment decisions; however, most research studies examine the influence of health care provider support while the influence of family member support is understudied. The current study fills this gap by examining the influence of health care providers and partners on decision-making satisfaction. In a cross-sectional study via an online Qualtrics panel, we surveyed cancer patients who reported that they had a spouse or romantic partner when making cancer treatment decisions (n = 479). Decisional support was measured using 5-point, single-item scales for emotional support, informational support, informational-advice support, and appraisal support. Decision-making satisfaction was measured using Holmes-Rovner and colleagues' (1996) Satisfaction With Decision Scale. We conducted a mediated regression analysis to examine treatment decision-making satisfaction for all participants and a moderated mediation analysis to examine treatment satisfaction among those patients offered a clinical trial. Results indicated that partner support significantly and partially mediated the relationship between health care provider support and patients' decision-making satisfaction but that results did not vary by enrollment in a clinical trial. This study shows how and why decisional support from partners affects communication between health care providers and cancer patients.