Article Data

  • Views 547
  • Dowloads 152

Original Research

Open Access

Supporting Patients in Making Treatment Decisions for Early Prostate Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professionals’ Views on Barriers and Challenges in an Asian Country

  • Ping Yein Lee1
  • Ai Theng Cheong1
  • Chirk Jenn Ng2
  • Yew Kong Lee2
  • Khatijah Lim Abdullah3
  • Azad Hassan Abdul Razack4
  • Teng Aik Ong4

1Department of Family Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

2Department of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

3Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

4Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

DOI: 10.31083/jomh.v12i1.21 Vol.12,Issue 1,January 2016 pp.18-24

Published: 04 January 2016

*Corresponding Author(s): Ping Yein Lee E-mail: yein@upm.edu.my

PDF (81.39 kB)

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to explore the challenges faced by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Malaysia in supporting patients with early prostate cancer in making treatment decisions.

Methods: Four in-depth individual interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with urologists (n=11), urology trainees (n=5), oncologists (n=3) and policy makers (n=1) in Malaysia in 2012-2013. A semi-structured interview guide was used to facilitate the interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyze the data.

Results: Challenges reported by HCPs in supporting patients in making decisions about prostate cancer treatment consisted of patient, social, healthcare professionals and health system factors. Patient-related challenges were: distrust of HCPs, difficulty in communicating information, preconceptions, attitudes to treatment, preparedness for decision making, viewing prostate cancer as taboo and fear of treatment complications, or side-effects. Social factors, such as influence of family or others, also posed a problem for HCPs seeking to support patients’ decision-making. HCP-related challenges included: differences of opinion among HCPs, uncertainty about the best treatment option and lack of interdisciplinary cooperation. Healthcare system factors challenges included: lack of support staff, time constraints, treatment availability and treatment costs. HCPs suggested that delivery of care by multi-disciplinary teams, and more use of audio-visual media, would help patients to make decisions. Conclusions: HCPs faced various challenges in supporting patients with prostate cancer in making decisions about treatment. Delivery of care by a supportive team in a specialist centre may improve the support patients receive in making decisions. 

Keywords

Cancer, decision, prostate, support, treatment

Cite and Share

Ping Yein Lee,Ai Theng Cheong,Chirk Jenn Ng,Yew Kong Lee,Khatijah Lim Abdullah,Azad Hassan Abdul Razack,Teng Aik Ong. Supporting Patients in Making Treatment Decisions for Early Prostate Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professionals’ Views on Barriers and Challenges in an Asian Country. Journal of Men's Health. 2016. 12(1);18-24.

References

1. Heidenreich MB, S. Joniau, M.D. Mason, V. Matveev, N. Mottet, H-P. Schmid, T.H. van der Kwast, T. Wiegel, F. Zattoni. Guidelines on prostate cancer: European Association of Urology, 2011.

2. Holmboe ES, Concato J. Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer: asking men what’s important. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2000;15(10):694-701.

3. Fowler FJ, Jr., McNaughton Collins M, Albertsen PC, Zietman A, Elliott DB, Barry MJ. Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2000;283(24):3217-22.

4. Chan EC, Vernon SW, O’Donnell FT, Ahn C, Greisinger A, Aga DW. Informed Consent for cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: how well are men getting the message? American Journal of Public Health 2003;93(5):779-85.

5. Cooper-Patrick L, Gallo JJ, Gonzales JJ, Vu HT, Powe NR, Nelson C, et al. Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA 1999;282(6):583-9.

6. Perkins HS, Geppert CM, Gonzales A, Cortez JD, Hazuda HP. Cross-cultural similarities and differences in attitudes about advance care planning. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2002;17(1):48-57.

7. McNutt RA. Shared medical decision making: problems, process, progress. JAMA 2004;292(20):2516-8.

8. Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, Putnam W, Flowerdew GJ, Brownell BF, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ 2001;323(7323):1218-22.

9. Bruera E, Willey JS, Palmer JL, Rosales M. Treatment decisions for breast carcinoma: patient preferences and physician perceptions. Cancer 2002;94(7):2076-80.

10.  Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, Sheridan SL, Braddock CH, 3rd, Kaplan RM, et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005;143(4):293-300.

11.  Farooqui M, Hassali MA, Shatar AK, Shafie AA, Seang TB, Farooqui MA. A qualitative exploration of Malaysian cancer patients’ perspectives on cancer and its treatment. BMC Public Health 2011;11:525.

12.  Department of Statistics. General Report of Population and Housing Census 2000. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2005.

13. Patel HR, Mirsadraee S, Emberton M. The patient’s dilemma: prostate cancer treatment choices. The Journal of Urology 2003;169(3):828-33.

14.  Bogdan R, S.J. Taylor . Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York John Wiley, 1975 

15.  Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995;311(6996):42-5.

16.  Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation methods 1980 Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1980.

17.  Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311(7000):299-302.

18.  Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3(2):77-101.

19.  Wofford MM, Wofford JL, Bothra J, Kendrick SB, Smith A, Lichstein PR. Patient complaints about physician behaviors: a qualitative study. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2004;79(2):134-8.

20.  Sommers BD, Beard CJ, D’Amico AV, Kaplan I, Richie JP, Zeckhauser RJ. Predictors of patient preferences and treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2008;113(8):2058-67.

21.  Kim SP, Knight SJ, Tomori C, Colella KM, Schoor RA, Shih L, et al. Health literacy and shared decision making for prostate cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Cancer Investigation 2001;19(7):684-91.

22.  Randhawa G, Owens A. The meanings of cancer and perceptions of cancer services among South Asians in Luton, UK. British Journal of Cancer 2004;91(1):62-8.

23.  Wong-Kim E, Sun A, DeMattos MC. Assessing cancer beliefs in a Chinese immigrant community. Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center 2003;10(5 Suppl):22-8.

24.  Berry DL, Ellis WJ, Woods NF, Schwien C, Mullen KH, Yang C. Treatment decision-making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. Urologic Oncology 2003;21(2):93-100.

25. Shaw EK, Scott JG, Ferrante JM. The influence of family ties on men’s prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and treatment decisions. American Journal of Men’s Health 2013;7(6):461-71.

26.  Zeliadt SB, Penson DF, Moinpour CM, Blough DK, Fedorenko CR, Hall IJ, et al. Provider and partner interactions in the treatment decision-making process for newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. BJU International 2011;108(6):851-6; discussion 56-7.

27. Access to Clinical NurseSpecialists for men with prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Charity policy position August 2009.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Citation Index contains over 3,400 journals across 58 social sciences disciplines, as well as selected items from 3,500 of the world’s leading scientific and technical journals. More than 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in the social and behavioral sciences.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

SCOPUS Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

DOAJ DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

CrossRef Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref committed to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path.

Portico Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

    Top