Colorectal cancer patients' attitudes towards involvement in decision making.

Kinta Beaver, Malcolm Campbell, Olive Craven, David Jones, Karen A Luker, Shabbir S Susnerwala
Author Information
  1. Kinta Beaver: School of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. kinta.beaver@manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To design and administer an attitude rating scale, exploring colorectal cancer patients' views of involvement in decision making. To examine the impact of socio-demographic and/or treatment-related factors on decision making. To conduct principal components analysis to determine if the scale could be simplified into a number of factors for future clinical utility.
METHODS: An attitude rating scale was constructed based on previous qualitative work and administered to colorectal cancer patients using a cross-sectional survey approach.
RESULTS: 375 questionnaires were returned (81.7% response). For patients it was important to be informed and involved in the decision-making process. Information was not always used to make decisions as patients placed their trust in medical expertise. Women had more positive opinions on decision making and were more likely to want to make decisions. Written information was understood to a greater degree than verbal information. The scale could be simplified to a number of factors, indicating clinical utility.
CONCLUSION: Few studies have explored the attitudes of colorectal cancer patients towards involvement in decision making. This study presents new insights into how patients view the concept of participation; important when considering current policy imperatives in the UK of involving service users in all aspects of care and treatment.

References

  1. N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 30;341(27):2061-7 [PMID: 10615079]
  2. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10(3):193-6 [PMID: 11533427]
  3. BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):584-5 [PMID: 11557690]
  4. Health Expect. 2005 Jun;8(2):103-13 [PMID: 15860051]
  5. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1995 Oct;22(9):1401-8 [PMID: 8539181]
  6. Colorectal Dis. 2006 Oct;8(8):676-82 [PMID: 16970578]
  7. J Fam Pract. 1997 Sep;45(3):205-8 [PMID: 9299998]
  8. JAMA. 1997 May 14;277(18):1485-92 [PMID: 9145723]
  9. Oncologist. 2005 Mar;10(3):198-204 [PMID: 15793223]
  10. Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(5):681-92 [PMID: 9032835]
  11. Br J Cancer. 1999 Jan;79(1):138-45 [PMID: 10408705]
  12. Psychooncology. 2002 Jul-Aug;11(4):327-35 [PMID: 12203745]
  13. Cancer Nurs. 1996 Feb;19(1):8-19 [PMID: 8904382]
  14. Cancer Nurs. 1997 Jun;20(3):187-96 [PMID: 9190093]
  15. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2006 Dec;10(5):378-90 [PMID: 16709465]
  16. BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):731-4 [PMID: 10487995]
  17. Health Expect. 1999 Dec;2(4):266-276 [PMID: 11281903]
  18. J Clin Nurs. 2007 Apr;16(4):725-33 [PMID: 17402954]

Grants

  1. PB-PG-0610-22123/Department of Health

MeSH Term

Aged
Attitude to Health
Colorectal Neoplasms
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Participation
United Kingdom

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0decisionmakingpatientsscalecancercolorectalinvolvementfactorsattituderatingpatients'simplifiednumberclinicalutilityimportantmakedecisionsinformationattitudestowardsOBJECTIVES:designadministerexploringviewsexamineimpactsocio-demographicand/ortreatment-relatedconductprincipalcomponentsanalysisdeterminefutureMETHODS:constructedbasedpreviousqualitativeworkadministeredusingcross-sectionalsurveyapproachRESULTS:375questionnairesreturned817%responseinformedinvolveddecision-makingprocessInformationalwaysusedplacedtrustmedicalexpertiseWomenpositiveopinionslikelywantWrittenunderstoodgreaterdegreeverbalindicatingCONCLUSION:studiesexploredstudypresentsnewinsightsviewconceptparticipationconsideringcurrentpolicyimperativesUKinvolvingserviceusersaspectscaretreatmentColorectal

Similar Articles

Cited By