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
. 2023 Dec 21;23(1):1266.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11734-0.

Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study

Lisanne J H Smits #  1 , Annabel S van Lieshout #  2 , Saskia Debets  2 , Sacha Spoor  2 , Leon M G Moons  3 , Koen C M J Peeters  4 , Stefan E van Oostendorp  5 , Olga C Damman  6 , Rien J P A Janssens  7 , Wytze Lameris  2 , Nicole C T van Grieken  8 , Jurriaan B Tuynman  2
Affiliations

Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study

Lisanne J H Smits et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Shared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer.

Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights.

Results: Patients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life.

Conclusion: Patients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy.

Keywords: Early rectal cancer; Organ preservation; Patients’ perspectives.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of the interview
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Self-reported themes expressed spontaneously during the first part of the interview
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5146. - DOI - PubMed
    1. O'Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Moulton BW, Sepucha KR, et al. Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26(3):716–725. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.716. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH, De Haes JC. Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(10):1172–1179. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.022. - 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(5):681–692. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–1367. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources