No time for reflection: Patient experiences with treatment‐related decision‐making in advanced prostate cancer. Issue 4 (21st November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Netsey‐Afedo, Mette Margrethe Løwe; Ammentorp, Jette; Osther, Palle Jørn Sloth; Birkelund, Regner
• Is Part Of: Scandinavian journal of caring sciences. Volume 34:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 880
• Page End: 888
• Publication Date: 2019-11-21
• Subjects: advanced prostate cancer -- communication -- healthcare communication -- person‐centred healthcare -- patient involvement -- treatment‐related decision‐making -- shared decision‐making -- phenomenology‐hermeneutical -- interviews; Nursing -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1111/scs.12794
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0283-9318

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The rationale of the study was the predominant understanding that patient involvement in treatment‐related decision‐making is essential and that communication with cancer patients can affect their quality of life, satisfaction with care, and psychosocial and medical outcomes positively. Aim: This study explored how patients with advanced prostate cancer experience the communication with health professionals and their experiences of how and by whom treatment‐related decisions were made. Methods: A phenomenological‐hermeneutic research design was applied, and data were collected using qualitative interviews supplemented with participant observations in a urological outpatient clinic at a regional hospital in Denmark. Thirteen patients participated. Data were analysed using Ricoeur's theory of interpretation. Findings: The patients experienced the course as being routine and that decisions related to treatment were made in advance. Three themes were identified: (1) Fast track diagnosing and treatment, (2) Off course I should have this treatment, and (3) They don't ask about existential issues. Conclusion: The study concluded that patients experienced communication primarily revolved around disease‐ and treatment‐related issues and that it was characterised as efficient and straightforward, but insufficient. The patients experienced that the doctors made treatment‐related decisions without involving them.