https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6153-387X
Abstract
Background
Cancer treatment decision-making often needs to balance benefits, harms, and costs. This study sought to identify the differences in cancer treatment preference among oncologists, patients and their family members in China.
Methods
A semi-structured face-to-face qualitative interview was conducted among oncologists, patients and their family members recruited in four tertiary hospitals in China. The interview guide was developed based on literature review and expert consultation. Participants were asked to indicate their preferences when making lung cancer treatment decisions. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analyzed. The preferences were compared among three groups of participants.
Results
A total of 17 participants (5 oncologists, 6 dyads of patients and family members) were interviewed between June and July 2019. Five themes, namely, survival benefit, adverse effect/symptom, treatment process, treatment cost, and the impact on daily life were identified. The oncologists and family members gave highest priority on survival benefit, while the patients are concerned most about treatment cost and quality of life.
Conclusion
This study reveals different preferences for cancer treatment among oncologists, patients and their family members in China. Education is needed to empower patients and family members and promote share decision-making in this country.
Ethics Approval and Informed Consent
The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Ethical approval was obtained by the Safety and Ethics Committee of School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology in Tianjin University and all research hospitals (Tianjin Medical University General Hospital and Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital).
Author Contributions
All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.