Advertisement

Pharmacotherapy decision-making among patients with breast cancer in Japan: results of an online survey

  • Chikako ShimizuEmail author
  • Yukinori Sakata
  • Ruiko Sakai
  • Hiroki Ikezawa
  • Yoshiki Uetaki
  • Toshiyuki Matsuoka
Original Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Although communication between patients with breast cancer and physicians is central to treatment decision-making for patients and the concept of shared decision-making has been increasingly advocated worldwide, little is known about decision-making and perceptions among the population in Japan. Therefore, this cross-sectional study aimed to clarify the status of pharmacotherapy decision-making among patients with breast cancer in Japan and assess factors associated with patient satisfaction with patient–physician communication.

Methods

Data for women previously treated with pharmacotherapy agents for breast cancer in Japan were collected in July 2017 using an online survey. Respondents were categorized by their decision-making role (active, shared, passive). Characteristics, decisional conflict level, and satisfaction with communication with their physician at the time of pharmacotherapy selection were stratified by decision-making roles. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with satisfaction.

Results

Of 486 women that responded, nearly half played an active decision-making role (48.4%) and 26.0% played a shared role. The lowest decisional conflict and higher satisfaction were observed among those who played a shared role. The highest decisional conflict and lower satisfaction were observed in passive decision-makers. Shared decision-making, a longer consultation time with the physician, and multiple treatment options provided by the physician were significantly associated with satisfaction with communication with the physician.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that among patients with breast cancer, a shared role in treatment decision-making, longer consultation time at treatment selection, and having multiple treatment options are important for higher patient satisfaction with communication with their physician.

Keywords

Breast neoplasms Decision-making Communication Patient preference Japan 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Eisai Co., Ltd. Medical writing assistance was provided by Clinical Study Support, Inc. under contract with Eisai Co., Ltd. This study was presented in part as an abstract presentation at the 26th annual meeting of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society on May 16, 2018.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Chikako Shimizu has been paid for consulting or advisory role by Eisai Co., Ltd. during the study; and outside the submitted study, been paid honoraria by AstraZeneca K.K., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., ASKA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.; been paid for consulting or advisory role by Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc., and AstraZeneca K.K.; and conducted research projects funded by Eli Lilly Japan K.K., MSD K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Pfizer Japan Inc. Yukinori Sakata, Ruiko Sakai, Hiroki Ikezawa, and Toshiyuki Matsuoka are employees of Eisai Co., Ltd. Yoshiki Uetaki is an employee of Anterio Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Nakashima M, Kuroki S, Shinkoda H, Suetsugu Y, Shimada K, Kaku T. Information-seeking experiences and decision-making roles of Japanese women with breast cancer. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi. 2012;103(6):120–30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sutherland HJ, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Till JE. Cancer patients: their desire for information and participation in treatment decisions. J R Soc Med. 1989;82(5):260–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elkin EB, Kim SH, Casper ES, Kissane DW, Schrag D. Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: elderly cancer patients’ preferences and their physicians’ perceptions. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5275–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilligan T, Coyle N, Frankel RM, Berry DL, Bohlke K, Epstein RM, et al. Patient-clinician communication: American society of clinical oncology consensus guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(31):3618–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mandelblatt J, Kreling B, Figeuriedo M, Feng S. What is the impact of shared decision making on treatment and outcomes for older women with breast cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(30):4908–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect. 2006;9(4):307–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hack TF, Degner LF, Parker PA. SCRN communication team. The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review. Psychooncology. 2005;14(10):831–45 (discussion 846-7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown R, Butow P, Wilson-Genderson M, Bernhard J, Ribi K, Juraskova I. Meeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: impact on decision-related outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):857–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yamauchi K, Nakao M, Nakashima M, Ishihara Y. Congruence between preferred and actual participation roles increases satisfaction with treatment decision making among Japanese women with breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(4):987–94.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bruera E, Willey JS, Palmer JL, Rosales M. Treatment decisions for breast carcinoma: patient preferences and physician perceptions. Cancer. 2002;94(7):2076–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Health, Labour and welfare: ethical guidelines for medical and health research involving human subjects [in Japanese]. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-10600000-Daijinkanboukouseikagakuka/0000153339.pdf. Accessed 05 Jun 2018.
  13. 13.
    Schaede U, Mahlich J, Nakayama M, Kobayashi H, Takahashi Y, Saito K, et al. Shared decision-making in patients with prostate cancer in Japan: patient preferences versus physician perceptions. J Glob Oncol. 2018;4:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruera E, Sweeney C, Calder K, Palmer L, Benisch-Tolley S. Patient preferences versus physician perceptions of treatment decisions in cancer care. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(11):2883–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kawaguchi T, Azuma K, Yamaguchi T, Soeda H, Sekine Y, Koinuma M, et al. Development and validation of the Japanese version of the decisional conflict scale to investigate the value of pharmacists’ information: a before and after study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Légaré F, Kearing S, Clay K, Gagnon S, D’Amours D, Rousseau M, et al. Are you SURE?: Assessing patient decisional conflict with a 4-item screening test. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56(8):e308–14.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linder SK, Swank PR, Vernon SW, Mullen PD, Morgan RO, Volk RJ. Validity of a low literacy version of the decisional conflict scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(3):521–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Légaré F, Leblanc A, Robitaille H, Turcotte S. The decisional conflict scale: moving from the individual to the dyad level. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(4):247–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The Ottawa Hospital. Patient Decision Aids. Decisional conflict scale. User manual—Decisional conflict scale, 2010. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_decisional_conflict.pdf. Accessed 05 Mar 2018.
  21. 21.
    Atherton PJ, Smith T, Singh JA, Huntington J, Diekmann BB, Huschka M, et al. The relation between cancer patient treatment decision-making roles and quality of life. Cancer. 2013;119(12):2342–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kokufu H. Conflict accompanying the choice of initial treatment in breast cancer patients. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2012;9(2):177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross L, Petersen MA, Johnsen AT, Lundstrøm LH, Groenvold M. Cancer patients’ evaluation of communication: a report from the population-based study ‘The Cancer Patient’s World’. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(1):235–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liang W, Burnett CB, Rowland JH, Meropol NJ, Eggert L, Hwang YT, et al. Communication between physicians and older women with localized breast cancer: implications for treatment and patient satisfaction. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(4):1008–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Japanese Breast Cancer Society (Ed.). The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer treatment 2018, vol. 1. 4th ed. Tokyo: Kanehara-Shuppan Publishers; 2018 (in Japanese).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Eisai Co., Ltd.TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Anterio Inc.TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations