Introduction: Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised... Show moreIntroduction: Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised trial. The aim of this study is to assess if and how surgeons use steering behaviour in their information provision to patients in their choice to participate in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial investigating an organ sparing treatment in (curable) oesophageal cancer (SANO trial).Materials and methods: A qualitative study was performed. Thematic content analysis was applied to audiotaped and transcribed consultations of twenty patients with eight different oncological surgeons in three Dutch hospitals. Patients could choose to participate in a clinical trial in which an experimental treatment of 'active surveillance' (AS) was offered. Patients who did not want to participate underwent standard treatment: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy.Results: Surgeons used various techniques to steer patients towards one of the two options, mostly to-wards AS. The presentation of pros and cons of treatment options was imbalanced: positive framing of AS was used to steer patients towards the choice for AS, and negative framing of AS to make the choice for surgery more attractive. Further, steering language, i.e. suggestive language, was used, and surgeons seemed to use the timing of the introduction of the different treatment options, to put more focus on one of the treatment options.Conclusion: Awareness of steering behaviour can help to guide physicians in more objectively informing patients on participation in future clinical trials.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Hermus, M.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Chang, R.; Dekker, J.W.T.; Coene, P.P.L.O.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; ... ; Kranenburg, L.W. 2023
BackgroundThis study explores patients' need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible.... Show moreBackgroundThis study explores patients' need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible. MethodsThis psychological companion study was conducted alongside the Dutch SANO-trial (Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer). In-depth interviews and questionnaires were used to collect data from patients who declined participation in the trial because they had a strong preference for either active surveillance (n = 20) or standard surgery (n = 20). Data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative techniques. ResultsPatients prefer to receive information directly from their doctors and predominantly rely on this information to make a treatment decision. Other information resources are largely used to confirm their treatment decision. Patients highly value support from their loved ones and appreciate emphatic doctors to actively involve them in the decision-making process. Overall, patients' needs for information and support during decision-making were met. ConclusionsThe importance of shared decision-making and the role doctors have in this process is underlined. The role of doctors is essential at the initial phase of decision-making: Once patients seem to have formed their treatment preference for either active surveillance or surgery, the influence of external resources (including doctors) may be limited. Show less
Hermus, M.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Chang, R.T.H.; Collee, G.; Noordman, B.J.; Coene, P.P.L.O.; ... ; Kranenburg, L.W. 2022
Active surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we... Show moreActive surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we gained insight in patients' motive to opt for either an experimental treatment called active surveillance or for standard immediate surgery. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses methods were used. Forty patients were interviewed about their treatment preference, 3 months after completion of nCRT (T1). Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. In addition, at T1 and T2 (12 months after completion of nCRT) questionnaires on health-related quality of life, coping, anxiety and decisional regret (only T2) were administered. Interview data analyses resulted in a conceptual model with 'dealing with threat of cancer' as the central theme. Patients preferring active surveillance tend to cope with this threat by confiding in their bodies and good outcomes. Their mind-set is one of 'enjoy life now'. Patients preferring surgery tend to cope by minimizing uncertainty and eliminating the source of cancer. Their mind-set is one of 'don't give up, act now'. Furthermore, questionnaire results showed that patients with a preference for standard surgery had a lower quality of life. Patient preferences are individualized and thus difficult to predict. Our model can help healthcare professionals to determine patient preferences for treatment. Coping style and mind-set seem to be determining factors here. Show less
