Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, 17:69 | Cite as

Forecasting changes in preference over the life span: a qualitative study of African–American men’s prostate cancer decision making

  • Julie H. GoldbergEmail author
  • Alan Schwartz
Original Article

Abstract

Goals of work

The goal of this study was to explore the processes by which African–American men, at greatest risk, might forecast and manage health changes as they age if they were diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Patients and methods

Twenty-nine African–American men, 40–70 years old, with no history of prostate cancer, participated in four focus groups and four follow-up individual interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using Grounded Theory, with thematic analysis and constant comparison of data.

Main results

There was a curvilinear relationship between age and participants’ preference for quality versus quantity of life in deciding to treat prostate cancer. Two mechanisms accounted for this: a change with age in the (1) reference point for judging value and (2) decision-making goal.

Conclusions

With increasing long-term survivorship, it is vital to understand the multiple decisions cancer patients will face as they continue to age. The current study is an initial step in studying how patients might anticipate and manage such changes.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Cancer survivors Decision making over the lifespan 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the patients and doctors for their participation and Josh Hemmerich for his assistance in gathering the data. Partial support for this research came from the Portes Foundation. The authors’ work was independent of the funders, including the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Barnholtz-Sloan J, Severson R, Vaishampayan U et al (2003) Survival analysis of distant prostate cancer by decade (1973–1997) in the Detroit Metropolitan Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program registry: has outcome improved? (United States) Cancer Causes Control 14:681–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper C, Merritt T, Ross L et al (2004) To screen or not to screen, when clinical guidelines disagree: primary care physicians’ use of the PSA test. Prev Med 38:182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous (2002) Diagnosing prostate cancer: part 1: PSA test not a gold standard. Diagn Innovation 11:3–9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghafoor A, Jemal A, Cokkinides V et al (2002) Cancer statistics for African American. CA Cancer J Clin 52:326–341PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grunfeld E (2006) Looking beyond survival: how are we looking at survivorship? J Clin Oncol 24(32):5166–5169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E et al (2005) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maher E, Makin W (2007) Life after cancer treatment—a spectrum of chronic survivorship conditions. Clin Oncol 19:743–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meneses D, McNees P, Loerzel V et al (2007) Transition from treatment to survivorship: effects of a psychoeducational intervention on quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum 5:1007–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merrill R, Lyon J (2000) Explaining the difference in prostate cancer mortality rates between white and black men in the United States. Urology 55:730–735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miles M, Huberman M (1994) An expanded sourcebook: qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Monin B, Norton M, Cooper J et al (2004) Reacting to an assumed situation vs. conforming to an assumed reaction: The role of perceived speaker attitude in vicarious dissonance. Group Process Intergroup Relat 7:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norton M, Monin B, Cooper J et al (2003) Vicarious dissonance: attitude change from the inconsistency of others. JPSP 85:47–62Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Connor A, Rostom A, Fiset V et al (1999) Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ 319:731–734PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peters E, Hess T, Vastfjall D et al (2007) Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults’ decision making. Perspec Psychol Sci 2:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ries L, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. (2007) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2004. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/. Accessed 15 November 2007
  17. 17.
    Short P, Vasey J, BeLue R (2008) Work disability associated with cancer survivorship and other chronic conditions. Psychooncology 17:91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith R, Cokkinides, Eyre H (2005) American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 55:31–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ubel P, Jepson C, Baron J (2001) The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: effects on treatment choices. Med Decis Making 21:60–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fischhoff B (1975) Hindsight is not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1:288–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Education, M/C 591, College of MedicineUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations