Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep 27;7(9):e016360.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016360.

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice

Pola Hahlweg  1 , Martin Härter  1 , Yvonne Nestoriuc  2   3 , Isabelle Scholl  1
Affiliations

How are decisions made in cancer care? A qualitative study using participant observation of current practice

Pola Hahlweg et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: Shared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician-patient interaction.

Design: Cross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon.

Setting and participants: Field notes from participant observations were collected at n=54 outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany.

Results: Most of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were 'active' (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients.

Conclusion: Most of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care.

Keywords: cancer; oncology; participant observation; patient-centred care; qualitative research; shared decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: MH declares that he is co-PI in a SDM research project funded by Mundipharma GmBH, a pharmaceutical company. IS conducted one physician training in shared-decision making within the research project funded by Mundipharma GmBH. The authors did not receive funding from Mundipharma GmBH for this paper, nor was the company involved in any steps of this study or publication process.

References

    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:780–1. 10.1056/NEJMp1109283 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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;44:681–92. 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Härter M, van der Weijden T, Elwyn G. Policy and practice developments in the implementation of shared decision making: an international perspective. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2011;105:229–33. 10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.018 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whitney SN. A new model of medical decisions: exploring the limits of shared decision making. Med Decis Making 2003;23:275–80. 10.1177/0272989X03256006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, et al. . Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2012;86:9–18. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources