4.5 Article

Probabilities of benefit and harms of preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer: What do radiation oncologists tell and what do patients understand?

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 98, 期 9, 页码 1092-1098

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.009

关键词

Rectal cancer; Risk communication; Information provision; Preoperative radiotherapy; Shared decision making

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [UL2009-4431]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Probabilities of benefits and harms of treatment may help patients when making a treatment decision. This study aimed to examine (1) whether and how radiation oncologists convey probabilities to rectal cancer patients, and (2) patients' estimates of probabilities of major outcomes of rectal cancer treatment. Methods: First consultations of oncologists and patients eligible for preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) (N=90) were audio taped. Tapes were transcribed verbatim and coded to identify probabilistic information presented. Patients (N=56) filled in a post-consultation questionnaire on their estimates of probabilities. Results: Probabilities were mentioned in 99% (local recurrence), 75% (incontinence), 72% and 40% (sexual dysfunction in males and females, respectively) of cases. Most patients (89%) correctly estimated that PRT decreases the probability of local recurrence, and 10% and 38%/54% that it increases the probability of incontinence and sexual dysfunction in males/females, respectively. Patients tended to underestimate the probabilities of harms of treatment. Conclusion: Our results show that oncologists almost always mention probabilities of benefit of PRT. In contrast, probabilities of harms often go unmentioned. The effect of PRT on adverse events is often underestimated. Practice implications: Oncologists should stay alert to patients' possible misunderstanding of probabilistic information and should check patients' perceptions of probabilities. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据