Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

2995 - Comparing cancer patients’ and support persons’ preferences for the type of consultation and the format of information provided when making a treatment decision

Date

22 Oct 2018

Session

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

Topics

Supportive Care and Symptom Management

Tumour Site

Presenters

Anne Herrmann

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii603-viii640. 10.1093/annonc/mdy300

Authors

A. Herrmann1, R. Sanson-Fisher1, A. Hall1, L. Wall2, N. Zdenkowski3, A. Waller1

Author affiliations

  • 1 School Of Medicine And Public Health, University of Newcastle, 2308 - Callaghan/AU
  • 2 School Of Psychology, University of Newcastle, 2308 - Callaghan/AU
  • 3 Department Of Medical Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, 2298 - Waratah/AU

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 2995

Background

Cancer patients and their support persons often feel overwhelmed when being confronted with their diagnosis and treatment options. Such information is commonly provided during one consultation with their clinician. We compared cancer patients’ and their support persons’ preferences for: i) attending one 40-minute consultation or two 20-minute consultations when making a treatment decision; and ii) receiving additional information in written form only or in both written and online forms.

Methods

An Australian cross-sectional survey, using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), of 159 adult medical oncology patients, and 64 of their support persons. Participants were presented with four hypothetical scenarios and asked to indicate their most and least preferred option. They were told that both treatments would have the same impact on participants’ life expectancy, and that there would be no difference between the scenarios in terms of when treatment would start.

Results

147 patients and 59 support persons completed the DCE. The proportions of patients and support persons choosing each scenario did not differ statistically significantly from each other (p > 0.05). Of the four scenarios, most patients and support persons preferred to receive two consultations along with written and online information (n = 65, 44% and n = 30, 51% respectively). Significantly more participants preferred to receive two shorter consultations rather than one longer consultation when this was combined with written and online information (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

When making a cancer treatment decision, both patients and support persons seem to prefer to receive two shorter consultations combined with written and online information. Clinicians should consider offering this consultation style.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Anne Herrmann.

Funding

This study was funded by a Strategic Research Partnership Grant [CSR 11-02] from the Cancer Council New South Wales to the Newcastle Cancer Control Collaborative (New-3C), and by a Partnership Project [APP1059760] from the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The authors also received funding support from the Hunter Cancer Research Alliance Implementation Science Flagship Program, the Hunter New England Local Health District, and the Australian Research Council. Infrastructure funding was provided by the University of Newcastle and Hunter Medical Research Institute.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.