Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The evolution of uncertainty in second opinions about prostate cancer treatment.
Hillen, Marij A; Gutheil, Caitlin M; Smets, Ellen M A; Hansen, Moritz; Kungel, Terrence M; Strout, Tania D; Han, Paul K J.
Afiliação
  • Hillen MA; Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Gutheil CM; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
  • Smets EMA; Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Hansen M; Division of Urology, Genitourinary Cancer Program, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA.
  • Kungel TM; Maine Coalition to Fight Prostate Cancer, Augusta, ME, USA.
  • Strout TD; Department of Emergency Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA.
  • Han PKJ; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Health Expect ; 20(6): 1264-1274, 2017 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28521078
BACKGROUND: People who have cancer increasingly seek second opinions. Yet, we know little about what motivates patients to seek them and how beneficial they are. Uncertainty-experienced by patients or communicated by physician and patient-may be crucial throughout the second opinion process. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate (1) how uncertainty influences men with prostate cancer to seek second opinions and (2) how second opinions may affect these patients' sense of uncertainty and subsequent experiences with their care. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was performed. Men with localized or advanced prostate cancer (n=23) were interviewed by telephone about their motivations and experiences with seeking second opinions and the uncertainties they experienced. Analysis was performed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Patients sought second opinions because they were uncertain about receiving too little or biased information, experienced insufficient support in coming to a treatment decision, or because physicians expressed different levels of uncertainty than they did ("unshared uncertainty"). Uncertainty was reduced by the second opinion process for most patients, whereas for others, it increased or was sustained. This evolution depended on the way uncertainty was addressed during the second opinion consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Second opinions may be a useful tool for some but not all patients. They should be used judiciously and not be viewed as a solution for current limitations to health-care organization. An important yet challenging task for physicians is to focus less on information per se and more on how to assist patients manage irreducible uncertainty.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Encaminhamento e Consulta / Tomada de Decisões / Incerteza Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research Limite: Aged / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Health Expect Assunto da revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda País de publicação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Encaminhamento e Consulta / Tomada de Decisões / Incerteza Tipo de estudo: Qualitative_research Limite: Aged / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Health Expect Assunto da revista: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE / SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda País de publicação: Reino Unido