Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 129, Issue 1, pp 79–87 | Cite as

The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
  • Andrea M. Angott
  • Peter A. Ubel
Preclinical study

Abstract

Breast cancer patients must often decide between multiple adjuvant therapy options to prevent cancer recurrence. Standard practice, as implemented in current decision support tools, is to present information about all options simultaneously, but psychology research suggests that sequential decision processes might improve decision making. We tested whether asking women to consider hormonal therapy and chemotherapy separately would improve women’s risk knowledge and/or affect treatment intentions. We conducted an Internet-administered experimental survey of a demographically diverse sample of 1,781 women ages 40–74. Participants were randomized to experience a standard, comprehensive decision process versus sequential (one at a time) decisions regarding adjuvant therapy options for a hypothetical breast cancer patient with an estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumor. We assessed comprehension of key statistics, perceptions of treatment effectiveness, and perceived interest in adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as participants’ numeracy levels. When participants made sequential decisions, they demonstrated greater comprehension of decision-relevant risk statistics, as compared to when they made decisions all at once (all P’s < 0.001). Among higher-numeracy participants, those making sequential decisions were less interested in chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Lower-numeracy participants who considered all options simultaneously were insensitive to the degree of risk reduction, but those who made sequential decisions were sensitive (P = 0.03). In conclusion, presenting adjuvant therapy options sequentially improves women’s comprehension of incremental treatment benefit and increases less numerate women’s sensitivity to the magnitude of the achievable risk reduction over standard, all at once approaches. Sequential approaches to adjuvant therapy decisions may reduce use of chemotherapy among those at low risk for recurrence.

Keywords

Risk Patient education as topic Patient-provider communication Adjuvant therapies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this study was provided by the National Institutes for Health (R01 CA87595). Dr. Zikmund-Fisher is supported by a career development award from the American Cancer Society (MRSG-06-130-01-CPPB). Dr. Angott was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. The funding agreements ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, and publishing the report. The authors would like to thank Mark Dickson for creating the risk graphics and for programming, testing and implementing the survey and Nicole Exe for her project management.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

  1. 1.
    O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle SD, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, Tait V, Tetroe J, Fiset V, Barry M, Jones J (2003) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peele PB, Siminoff LA, Xu Y, Ravdin PM (2005) Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information. Med Decis Making 25:301–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siminoff LA, Gordon NH, Silverman P, Budd T, Ravdin PM (2006) A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer. Psychooncology 15:1001–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belkora J, Rugo HS, Moore DH, Hutton D, Esserman L (2008) Risk communication with patients with breast cancer: cautionary notes about printing adjuvant! estimates. Lancet Oncol 9:602–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2008) Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer 113(12):3382–3390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2010) A demonstration of “less can be more” in risk graphics. Med Decis Making. doi:  10.1177/0272989X10364244
  7. 7.
    Hutton DW, Belkora JK, Shachter RD, Moore DH (2009) Are patients getting the “gist” in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer treatment. J Cancer Educ 24:194–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belkora JK, Rugo HS, Moore DH, Hutton DW, Chen DF, Esserman LJ (2009) Oncologist use of the adjuvant! model for risk communication: a pilot study examining patient knowledge of 10-year prognosis. BMC Cancer 9:127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lipkus IM, Peters E, Kimmick G, Liotcheva V, Marcom P (2010) Breast cancer patients’ treatment expectations after exposure to the decision aid program adjuvant online: the influence of numeracy. Med Decis Making 30:464–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W (1999) Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 282(24):2313–2320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK (2007) Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev 64(2):169–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iyengar SS, Lepper MR (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why more is less, 1st edn. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA (2005) Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making 25(4):398–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Roberts TR, Derry HA, Ubel PA (2008) Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurence. J Health Commun 13(2):107–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V (2007) Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 27:34–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM (2007) Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl 13(1):11–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Price M, Cameron R, Butow P (2007) Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception—accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns 69:121–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry H, Smith DM (2007) Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS). Med Decis Making 27(5):672–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A (2007) Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 27(5):663–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stata statistical software (2009) 11 edn. Stata Corporation, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hinson J, Jameson T, Whitney P (2003) Impulsive decision making and working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 29:298–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yates JF, Veinott ES, Patalano AL (2003) Hard decisions, bad decisions: on decision quality and decision aiding. In: Schneider SL, Shanteau JC (eds) Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 13–63Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huber J, Payne JW, Puto C (1982) Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J Consumer Res 9:80–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hsee CK, Blount S, Lowenstein GF, Bazerman MH (1999) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull 125(5):576–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2004) “Is 28% good or bad?” Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making 24(2):142–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol Rev 76(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrea M. Angott
    • 4
  • Peter A. Ubel
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Health Behavior and Health EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in MedicineAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Sanford School of Public PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations