open access publication

Article, 2024

Shared decision making with breast cancer patients – does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial

Radiotherapy and Oncology, ISSN 0167-8140, Volume 193, 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110115

Contributors

Sondergaard S.R. 0000-0002-2259-4829 (Corresponding author) [1] [2] [3] Bechmann T. 0000-0001-6838-6745 [4] Maae E. 0009-0002-9426-9803 [1] Molby Nielsen A.W. [5] Nielsen M.H. [2] Moller M. 0000-0003-0007-2381 [6] Timm S. 0000-0002-5862-7784 [1] [3] Lorenzen E.L. 0000-0003-1895-733X [7] Berry L.L. 0000-0002-9110-7502 [8] Zachariae R. 0000-0001-9076-3068 [5] [9] Offersen B.V. 0000-0001-7356-2096 [5] Steffensen K.D. 0000-0002-9217-3907 [1] [3]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Vejle Hospital
  2. [NORA names: Region of Southern Denmark; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  3. [2] Odense University Hospital
  4. [NORA names: Region of Southern Denmark; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  5. [3] University of Southern Denmark
  6. [NORA names: SDU University of Southern Denmark; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  7. [4] Regional Hospital West Jutland
  8. [NORA names: Central Denmark Region; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  9. [5] Aarhus University Hospital
  10. [NORA names: Central Denmark Region; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];

Abstract

Background and purpose: Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation. Material and methods: Oncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0–100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months. Results: Of the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Patient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline.

Funders

  • Region Syddanmark
  • Danish Breast Cancer Group
  • Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Davis

Data Provider: Elsevier