These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: PCA: prostate cancer, patient-centred approach or both?
    Author: Denis L, Joniau S, Bossi A, Baskin-Bey E, Fitzpatrick JM.
    Journal: BJU Int; 2012 Jul; 110(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 22233268.
    Abstract:
    What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Several studies have explored patient-specific expectations of prostate cancer management, while others have investigated physicians' perceptions. However, the opinions of both groups have seldom been compared in one study. Therefore, the present study compares the results of two surveys, one among physicians and one among patients, on patient-physician communication and patients' expectations of prostate cancer management. The present review aims to highlight the differences and similarities in opinion on prostate cancer management between physicians and patients. It reflects the most important results of two surveys on patient-specific expectations in prostate cancer management, done among European prostate cancer specialists and patients with prostate cancer. These results are compared with published data. In addition, the authors' opinion on the survey results and on optimal prostate cancer management is included. To evaluate differences and similarities in opinions on and expectations of prostate cancer management between physicians and patients. Two surveys on patient-specific opinions and expectations in prostate cancer management were done in 2011 among European prostate cancer specialists and patients with prostate cancer. Survey results were complemented with existing published data and with the authors' opinion. Most specialists spent 15-29 min on delivering the diagnosis, and about the same amount of time on explaining treatment options. This time was considered insufficient by 35% and 48% of patients, respectively. There was a large discrepancy between physicians' and patients' opinions about the type of provided prognostic and therapeutic information, indicating that patients may not have completely understood this information. Shared decision-making was preferred by both patients and specialists. Treatment efficacy was the most important factor determining treatment choice for both groups, while the physician's opinion or experience also had a great impact on patients' treatment choice. Patient-support groups have an important role in providing relevant information and in exchanging experiences between patients. The supportive role of partners/relatives was more appreciated when discussing treatment options than during diagnosis. Although patients' expectations are generally matched by their caring physician(s), physicians can still improve quality of care by taking adequate time for their patients, by using terminology that is easily understood by patients and by encouraging shared decision-making. A multidisciplinary team may be an important part of the treatment paradigm, with the individual patient's needs and preferences as the centre of care.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]