Efficient development and usability testing of decision support interventions for older women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of breast cancers diagnosed every year in the UK are in women aged ≥70 years. However, there are currently no decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women who have a choice between primary endocrine therapy and surgery followed by adjuvant endocrine therapy (surgery+endocrine therapy), or who can choose whether or not to have chemotherapy following surgery. There is also little evidence-based guidance specifically on the management of these older patients. A large UK cohort study is currently underway to address this lack of evidence and to develop two DESIs to facilitate shared decision-making with older women about breast cancer treatments. Here, we present the development and initial testing of these two DESIs. METHODS: An initial prototype DESI was developed for the choice of primary endocrine therapy or surgery+endocrine therapy. Semi-structured interviews with healthy volunteers and patients explored DESI acceptability, usability, and utility. A framework approach was used for analysis. A second DESI for the choice of having chemotherapy or not was subsequently developed based on more focused development and testing. RESULTS: Participants (n=22, aged 75-94 years, 64% healthy volunteers, 36% patients) found the primary endocrine therapy /surgery+endocrine therapy DESI acceptable, and contributed to improved wording and illustrations to address misunderstandings. The chemotherapy DESI (tested with 14 participants, aged 70-87 years, 57% healthy volunteers, 43% patients) was mostly understandable, however, suggestions for rewording sections were made. Most participants considered the DESIs helpful, but highlighted the importance of complementary discussions with clinicians. CONCLUSION: It was possible to use a template DESI to efficiently create a second prototype for a different treatment option (chemotherapy). Both DESIs were acceptable and considered helpful to support/augment consultations. Development of acceptable additional DESIs for similar target populations using simplified methods may be an efficient way to develop future DESIs. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of the DESIs.

Understanding older women's decision making and coping in the context of breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Primary endocrine therapy (PET) is a recognised alternative to surgery followed by endocrine therapy for a subset of older, frailer women with breast cancer. Choice of treatment is preference-sensitive and may require decision support. Older patients are often conceptualised as passive decision-makers. The present study used the Coping in Deliberation (CODE) framework to gain insight into decision making and coping processes in a group of older women who have faced breast cancer treatment decisions, and to inform the development of a decision support intervention (DSI). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with older women who had been offered a choice of PET or surgery from five UK hospital clinics. Women's information and support needs, their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions were explored. A secondary analysis of these interviews was conducted using the CODE framework to examine women's appraisals of health threat and coping throughout the deliberation process. RESULTS: Interviews with 35 women aged 75-98 years were analysed. Appraisals of breast cancer and treatment options were sometimes only partial, with most women forming a preference for treatment relatively quickly. However, a number of considerations which women made throughout the deliberation process were identified, including: past experiences of cancer and its treatment; scope for choice; risks, benefits and consequences of treatment; instincts about treatment choice; and healthcare professionals' recommendations. Women also described various strategies to cope with breast cancer and their treatment decisions. These included seeking information, obtaining practical and emotional support from healthcare professionals, friends and relatives, and relying on personal faith. Based on these findings, key questions were identified that women may ask during deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: Many older women with breast cancer may be considered involved rather than passive decision-makers, and may benefit from DSIs designed to support decision making and coping within and beyond the clinic setting.

Increasing readiness to decide and strengthening behavioral intentions: evaluating the impact of a web-based patient decision aid for breast cancer treatment options (BresDex: www.bresdex.com).

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a quantitative evaluation of a theory-based, interactive online decision aid (BresDex) to support women choosing surgery for early breast cancer (Stage I and II), based on observations of its use in practice. METHODS: Observational cohort study. Website log-files collected data on the use of BresDex. Online questionnaires assessed knowledge about breast cancer and treatment options, degree to which women were deliberating about their options, and surgery intentions, pre- and post-BresDex. RESULTS: Readiness to make a decision significantly increased after using BresDex (p<.001), although there was no significant improvement in knowledge. Participants that were 'less ready' to make a decision before using BresDex, spent a longer time using BresDex (p<.05). Significant associations between surgery intentions and choices were observed (p<.001), with the majority of participants going on to have BCS. Greater length of time spent on BresDex was associated with stronger intentions to have BCS (p<.05). CONCLUSION: The use of BresDex appears to facilitate readiness to make a decision for surgery, helping to strengthen surgery intentions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: BresDex may prove a useful adjunct to the support provided by the clinical team for women facing surgery for early breast cancer.

Clinicians' concerns about decision support interventions for patients facing breast cancer surgery options: understanding the challenge of implementing shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND: There is interest in interventions that provide support for patients facing challenging decisions, such as the choice between mastectomy and breast conservation surgery for breast cancer. However, it is difficult to implement these interventions. One potential source of resistance is the attitudes of clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To examine specialist breast clinicians' opinions about the provision of decision support interventions (DesIs) for patients. METHODS: As part of the development of a web-based DesI (BresDex), semi-structured interviews were conducted with specialist clinicians [breast surgeons, breast care nurses (BCNs) and oncologists] from four breast units in a UK region, and speciality national opinion leaders. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the Framework approach. RESULTS: A majority of the 24 clinicians interviewed did not have a working knowledge of DesIs and were ambivalent or sceptical. Many expressed conflicting opinions: they noted the potential benefits, but at the same time expressed reservations about information overlap, overload and about content that they considered inappropriate. Many wanted access to DesIs to be always under clinical supervision. In particular, they were uncertain as regards how DeSIs could be tailored to individual patients' needs and also accommodate clinical practice variation. BCNs were particularly concerned that DesIs might induce patient anxiety and replace their role. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of providing interventions to support patients in decision-making tasks generated concern, defensiveness and scepticism. These attitudes will be a significant barrier. Implementation efforts will need to recognize and address these issues if these interventions are to become embedded in clinical practice.

What influences clinicians' operative preferences for women with breast cancer? An application of the discrete choice experiment.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known regarding cancer clinicians' treatment preferences. AIM: Determine the impact of pre-operative variables over specialist breast clinicians' operative preferences using discrete choice experiment methodology. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of operative preferences to hypothetical scenarios based on: patient age, bra cup size, cancer size, site and focality. RESULTS: 73% response rate (68/93). Multinomial logistic regression across scenarios (n=1695) with allowance for response clustering, comparing equal preference for mastectomy and breast conservation surgery (BCS) with preference for mastectomy or BCS. Increasing patient age, cancer size, central site, multi-focality and reducing cup size, all associated with preference for mastectomy, over equal preference, over BCS (p<0.001). Doctors preferred specific treatments, females and nurses avoided mastectomy (p=0.015 and p<0.001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Clinician preferences were predominantly treatment guideline congruent, but significantly influenced by patient age, clinician gender and occupation. This methodology is capable of elucidating treatment preferences and could be applied elsewhere where treatment options and practice variability exist.