Patients' perspectives towards biologic dose reduction in psoriasis: a qualitative study.

Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis could contribute to more efficient use of these expensive medicines. Evidence on opinions of patients with psoriasis regarding dose reduction is sparse. The objective of this study was therefore to explore patients' perspectives towards dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis. A qualitative study was conducted, comprising semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with psoriasis with different characteristics and treatment experiences. Interviews were analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. Perceived benefits of biologic dose reduction according to patients were minimizing medication use, lowering risks of adverse effects and lowering societal healthcare costs. Patients reported to have experienced a large impact of their psoriasis, and expressed concerns about loss of disease control due to dose reduction. Fast access to flare treatment and adequate monitoring of disease activity were among reported preconditions. According to patients, they should have confidence in dose reduction effects and should be willing to change their effective treatment. Moreover, addressing information needs and involvement in decision-making were deemed important among patients. In conclusion, addressing patients' concerns, fulfilling information needs, providing the possibility of resuming standard dose, and involving patients in decision-making are important according to patients with psoriasis when considering biologic dose reduction.

National consensus on biologic dose reduction in psoriasis: a modified eDelphi procedure.

BACKGROUND: Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis is applied in daily practice, although guidelines are lacking. Striving for clear criteria is important, as it leads to a consistent application of dose reduction. OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus on criteria for biologic dose reduction in psoriasis patients with stable and low disease activity. METHODS: An online Delphi procedure (eDelphi) was conducted. Dutch dermatologists were invited to participate in a maximum of 3 voting rounds. Proposed statements were selected based on literature review and included criteria for the application of dose reduction and dosing schedules. Biologic dose reduction was defined as 'application of injection interval prolongation'. Proposed statements were rated using a 9-point Likert scale; consensus was reached when ≥70% of all voters rated 'agree' (7-9) and <15% rated 'disagree' (1-3). RESULTS: A total of 27 dermatologists participated and reached a consensus on 15 recommendations over 2 voting rounds. Agreed statements included criteria for dose reduction eligibility, criteria for dose reduction (dis)continuation, and dosing schedules for adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab. Based on the eDelphi outcomes, an algorithm fit for implementation in current practice was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations of this national consensus process can guide clinicians, and consequently their patients, toward consistent application of biologic dose reduction.

Optimizing the use of patients' individual outcome information - Development and usability tests of a Chronic Kidney Disease dashboard.

BACKGROUND: Reporting individual clinical and patient-reported outcomes to patients during consultations may add to patients' disease knowledge and activation and stimulate Shared Decision Making (SDM). These outcomes can be presented over time in a clear way by the means of dashboarding. We aimed to systematically develop a Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) dashboard designed to support consultations, test its usability and explore conditions for optimal use in practice. METHODS: For development a participatory approach with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) from three hospitals was used. Working groups and patient focus groups were conducted to identify needs and inform the dashboard's design. Usability was tested in patient interviews. A focus group with HCPs was held to identify conditions for optimal use of the dashboard in daily practice. RESULTS: A dashboard was developed for CKD patients stage 3b-4 visualizing both clinical and patient-reported outcomes over time for use during consultations and accessible for patients at home. Both HCPs and patients indicated that the dashboard can: motivate patients in their treatment by providing feedback on outcomes over time; improve consultation conversations by enhanced preparation of both HCPs and patients; better inform patients, thereby facilitating shared decision making. HCPs and patients both stated that setting a topic agenda for the consultation together is important in effectively discussing the dashboard during consultations. Moreover, the dashboard should not dominate the conversation. Lastly, findings of the usability tests provided design requirements for optimal user-friendliness and clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Dashboarding can be a valuable way of reporting individual outcome information to patients and their clinicians as findings suggest it may stimulate patient activation and facilitate decision making. Co-creation with patients and HCPs was essential for successful development of the dashboard. Gained knowledge from the co-creation process can inform others wishing to develop similar digital tools for use in clinical practice.

Oncologist, patient, and companion questions during pretreatment consultations about adjuvant cancer treatment: a shared decision-making perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the occurrence of questions that foster shared decision making, in particular cancer patients' understanding of treatment decisions and oncologists' understanding of patients' priorities, during consultations in which preference-sensitive decisions are discussed. Specifically, (a) regarding patient understanding, do oncologists ask about patients' preexisting knowledge, information preferences, and understanding and do patients and companions ask about the disease and treatment, and (b) regarding patient priorities, do oncologists ask about patients' treatment- and decision-related preferences and do patients and companions ask about the decision? METHODS: Audiotaped pretreatment consultations of 100 cancer patients with 32 oncologists about (neo)adjuvant treatment were coded and analyzed to document question type, topic, and initiative. RESULTS: The oncologists ascertained prior knowledge in 50 patients, asked 24 patients about preferred (probability) information, and invited questions from 56 patients. The oncologists asked 32 patients about treatment preferences and/or for consent. Respectively, one-third and one-fifth of patients and companions asked about treatment benefits compared with three-quarters of them who asked about treatment harms and/or procedures. CONCLUSIONS: It would be helpful to patients if oncologists more often assessed patients' existing knowledge to tailor their information provision. Also, patients could receive treatment recommendations that better fit their personal situation if oncologists collected information on patients' views about treatments. Moreover, by educating patients to ask about treatment alternatives, benefits, and harms, patients may gain a better understanding of the choice they have.

The EORTC QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaire for colorectal cancer: validation of the Dutch version.

PURPOSE: To validate the Dutch version of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaire for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We translated and pilot-tested the original questionnaire in the Netherlands, following EORTC guidelines. We assessed factor structure, reliability and construct validity in different samples of patients from four hospitals. RESULTS: Of 296 patients, 236 (80 %) returned the questionnaire, and 27 out of 48 patients returned the retest questionnaire. In addition to the original three scales, we found a reliable bowel functioning scale (α = 0.80), reducing the number of individual items by five. Two of the other scales had sufficient to good reliability (urinary frequency, α = 0.71, original α = 0.75, body image α = 0.80, original α = 0.84), the third, blood and mucus in stool, only moderate (α = 0.56, original α = 0.69). Item functioning was sufficient to excellent for all but two items (urinary incontinence and dysuria). Construct validity was similar to that in earlier studies. CONCLUSION: We found a very satisfactory scale for bowel problems, in patients both with and without stoma. The body image and urinary incontinence scales were reliable, and construct validity was sufficient. We suggest the questionnaire to be adapted to decrease the number of individual items, improve the scales, and therefore increase reliability of the entire questionnaire.

Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated as the model for decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions. In this paper we sketch the history of the concept of SDM, evidence on the occurrence of the steps in daily practice, and provide a clinical audience with communication strategies to support the steps involved. Finally, we discuss ways to improve the implementation of SDM. RESULTS: The plea for SDM originated almost simultaneously in medical ethics and health services research. Four steps can be distinguished: (1) the professional informs the patient that a decision is to be made and that the patient's opinion is important; (2) the professional explains the options and their pros and cons; (3) the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences and the professional supports the patient in deliberation; (4) the professional and patient discuss the patient's wish to make the decision, they make or defer the decision, and discuss follow-up. In practice these steps are seen to occur to a limited extent. DISCUSSION: Knowledge and awareness among both professionals and patients as well as tools and skills training are needed for SDM to become widely implemented. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Professionals may use the steps and accompanying communication strategies to implement SDM.

Decision consultations on preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: large variation in benefits and harms that are addressed.

BACKGROUND: For shared decision making to be successful, patients should receive sufficient information on possible benefits and harms of treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate what information radiation oncologists provide during the decision consultation about preoperative radiotherapy with rectal cancer patients. METHODS: Decision consultations of 17 radiation oncologists with 81 consecutive primary rectal cancer patients, eligible for short-course radiotherapy followed by a low-anterior resection, were audio taped. Tapes were transcribed and analysed using the ACEPP (Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences) coding scheme. RESULTS: A median of seven benefits/harms were addressed per consultation (range, 2-13). This number ranged within and between oncologists and was not clearly associated with the patient's characteristics. A total of 30 different treatment outcomes were addressed. The effect of radiotherapy on local control was addressed in all consultations, the effect on survival in 16%. The most important adverse effects are bowel and sexual dysfunction. These were addressed in 82% and 85% of consultations, respectively; the latter significantly less often in female than in male patients. Four out of five patients did not initiate discussion on any benefits/harms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed considerable inconsistency between and within oncologists in information provision, which could not be explained by patient characteristics. This variation indicates a lack of clarity on which benefits/harms of radiotherapy should be discussed with newly-diagnosed patients. This suboptimal patient information hampers the process of shared decision making, in which the decision is based on each individual patients' weighing of benefits and harms.

Treatment preferences and involvement in treatment decision making of patients with endometrial cancer and clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) in high-intermediate-risk endometrial cancer (EC) provides a significant reduction in the risk of local cancer recurrence, but without survival benefit and with increased mucosal atrophy. Five-year local control is estimated to be similar for VBT and a watchful waiting policy (WWP), in which patients receive VBT combined with external radiation in case of a recurrence. Our aim was to assess treatment preferences of EC patients and clinicians regarding VBT and WWP, and to evaluate their preferred and perceived involvement in treatment decision making. METHODS: Interviews were held with 95 treated EC patients. The treatment trade-off method was used to assess the minimally desired benefit from VBT in local control. Patients' preferred and perceived involvement in decision making were assessed using a questionnaire. Seventy-seven clinicians completed a questionnaire assessing their minimally desired benefit and preferred involvement in decision making. RESULTS: Minimally desired benefit of VBT was significantly lower for patients than for clinicians (median=0 vs 8%, P<0.001), for irradiated than for non-irradiated patients (median=0 vs 6.5%, P<0.001), and for radiation oncologists than for gynaecologists (median=4 vs 13%, P<0.001). Substantial variation existed within the groups of patients and clinicians. Participants preferred the patient and clinician to share in the decision about VBT. However, irradiated patients indicated low perceived involvement in actual treatment decision making. CONCLUSIONS: We found variations between and within patients and clinicians in minimally desired benefit from VBT. However, the recurrence risk at which patients preferred VBT was low. Our results showed that patients consider active participation in decision making essential.

Preoperative risk information and patient involvement in surgical treatment for rectal and sigmoid cancer.

AIM: Surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancer is a model setting for investigating preoperative information provision and shared decision making (SDM), as the decision consists of a trade-off between the pros and cons of different treatment options. The aim of this study was to explore surgeons' opinion on the preoperative information that should be given to rectal and sigmoid cancer patients and to evaluate what is actually communicated. In addition, we assessed surgeons' attitudes towards SDM and compared these with patient involvement. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to Dutch surgeons with an interest in gastroenterology. Preoperative consultations were recorded. A checklist was used to code the information that surgeons communicated to the patients. The OPTION-scale was used to measure patient involvement. RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent to 240 surgeons, and 103 (43%) responded. They stated that information on anastomotic leakage and its consequences, the benefits and risks of a defunctioning stoma and the impact of a stoma on quality of life were necessary preoperative information. In practice, patients were inconsistently informed of these items. Most participants agreed to using SDM in their consultations. However, in practice, most patients were offered only one treatment option and little SDM was seen. The mean OPTION-score was low (7/100). CONCLUSION: Insufficient information is given to patients with rectal and sigmoid cancer to guide them on their preferred surgical option. Information should be given on all treatment options, together with their complications and outcome, before any decision is made.

Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration.

Patient participation in treatment decision-making is being increasingly advocated, although cancer treatments are often guideline-driven. Trade-offs between benefits and side effects underlying guidelines are made by clinicians. Evidence suggests that clinicians are inaccurate at predicting patient values. The aim was to assess what role oncologists and cancer patients prefer in deciding about treatment, and how they view patient participation in treatment decision-making. Seventy disease-free cancer patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, and medical) were interviewed about their role preferences using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) and about their views on patient participation using closed- and open-ended questions. Almost all participants preferred treatment decisions to be the outcome of a shared process. Clinicians viewed participation more often as reaching an agreement, whereas 23% of patients defined participation exclusively as being informed. Of the participants, > or = 81% thought not all patients are able to participate and > or = 74% thought clinicians are not always able to weigh the pros and cons of treatment for patients, especially not quality as compared with length of life. Clinicians seemed reluctant to share probability information on the likely impact of adjuvant treatment. Clinicians should acknowledge the legitimacy of patients' values in treatment decisions. Guidelines should recommend elicitation of patient values at specific decision points.

Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients' and oncologists' preferences.

Preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) in resectable rectal cancer improves local control but increases probability of faecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Consensus was reached in 2001 in the Netherlands on a guideline advising PRT to new patients. Purpose was to assess at what benefit oncologists and rectal cancer patients prefer PRT followed by surgery to surgery alone, and how oncologists and patients value various treatment outcomes. Sixty-six disease-free patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, medical) were interviewed. Minimally desired benefit from PRT (local control) was assessed using the Treatment Tradeoff Method. Importance of survival, local control, faecal incontinence, and sexual dysfunction in determining treatment outcome preferences was assessed using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. The range of required benefit from PRT varied widely within participant groups. Seventeen percent of patients would choose PRT at a 0% benefit; 11% would not choose PRT for the maximum benefit of 11%. Mean minimally desired benefit excluding these two groups was 4%. For oncologists, the required benefit was 5%. Also, how strongly participants valued treatment outcomes varied widely within groups. Of the four outcomes, participants considered incontinence most often as most important. Relative treatment outcome importance differed between specialties. Patients considered sexual functioning more important than oncologists. Large differences in treatment preferences exist between individual patients and oncologists. Oncologists should adequately inform their patients about the risks and benefits of PRT, and elicit patient preferences regarding treatment outcomes.

Communication in cancer genetic counselling: does it reflect counselees' previsit needs and preferences?

This study sought to describe counsellor-counselee interaction during initial cancer genetic counselling consultations and to examine whether the communication reflects counselees' previsit needs. A total of 130 consecutive counselees, referred mainly for breast or colon cancer, completed a questionnaire before their first appointment at a genetic clinic. Their visit was videotaped. Counselee and counsellor verbal communications were analysed and initiative to discuss 11 genetics-specific conversational topics was assessed. The content of the visit appeared relatively standard. Overall, counselees had a stronger psychosocial focus than counsellors. Counsellors directed the communication more and initiated the discussion of most of the topics assessed. Counselees did not appear to communicate readily in a manner that reflected their previsit needs. Counsellors provided more psychosocial information to counselees in higher need for emotional support, yet did not enquire more about counselees' specific concerns. New counselees may be helped by receiving more information on the counselling procedure prior to their visit, and may be advised to prepare the visit more thoroughly so as to help them verbalise more their queries during the visit.

Ten-fold enhancement of 2,4-D effect on water hyacinth by addition of gibberellic acid.

Under greenhouse conditions the effective concentration of 2,4-D (amine salt) for killing water hyacinths could be decreased 10 times if 2,k4-D was applied in combination with extremely low concentrations of gibberellic acid (6 g/ha or higher). This implies that in practice the risk of harming nearby vegetation is considerably reduced, and the cost of spraying programmes might be decreased.