Shared Decision-Making in Pancreatic Surgery.
pancreatic surgery
patient reported outcomes
shared decision making
Journal
Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches
ISSN: 2691-3593
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101769928
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
06
07
2022
accepted:
09
07
2022
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
21
8
2023
entrez:
21
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of this study is to determine the factors influencing pancreatic surgery patients' perceptions of the shared decision-making process (SDM). Decision-making in pancreatic surgery is complicated by the risk of morbidity and mortality and risk of early recurrence of disease. Improvement in SDM has the potential to improve the receipt of goal- and value-concordant care. This cross-sectional survey included patients who underwent pancreatic surgery. The following components were studied in relation to SDM: modified satisfaction with decision scale (SWD), modified decisional regret scale (DRS), quality of physician and patient interaction, and the impact of quality of life (FACT-Hep). Correlations were computed using Pearson's correlation score and a regression model. The survey completion rate was 72.2% (of 40/55) and the majority (72.5%) of patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. There were significant positive relationships between the SDM measure and (DRS, SWD; Improved SDM in pancreatic surgery is associated with more realistic recovery expectations, decreased decisional regret, and improved quality of life.
Sections du résumé
Objective
UNASSIGNED
The objective of this study is to determine the factors influencing pancreatic surgery patients' perceptions of the shared decision-making process (SDM).
Background
UNASSIGNED
Decision-making in pancreatic surgery is complicated by the risk of morbidity and mortality and risk of early recurrence of disease. Improvement in SDM has the potential to improve the receipt of goal- and value-concordant care.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This cross-sectional survey included patients who underwent pancreatic surgery. The following components were studied in relation to SDM: modified satisfaction with decision scale (SWD), modified decisional regret scale (DRS), quality of physician and patient interaction, and the impact of quality of life (FACT-Hep). Correlations were computed using Pearson's correlation score and a regression model.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The survey completion rate was 72.2% (of 40/55) and the majority (72.5%) of patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. There were significant positive relationships between the SDM measure and (DRS, SWD;
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
Improved SDM in pancreatic surgery is associated with more realistic recovery expectations, decreased decisional regret, and improved quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37601151
doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000196
pmc: PMC10431427
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e196Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Références
JAMA Surg. 2021 Aug 1;156(8):758-765
pubmed: 33978692
World J Surg. 2017 Jun;41(6):1454-1465
pubmed: 28243695
J Gastrointest Surg. 2012 Sep;16(9):1727-35
pubmed: 22760965
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 21;9(6):e026488
pubmed: 31230005
Ann Surg. 2015 Apr;261(4):632-6
pubmed: 24743604
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 May;99(5):739-46
pubmed: 26658703
Psychooncology. 2005 Oct;14(10):831-45; discussion 846-7
pubmed: 16200519
AMA Arch Intern Med. 1956 May;97(5):585-92
pubmed: 13312700
Surgery. 2017 Apr;161(4):1058-1066
pubmed: 27993362
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 17;12(10):e0186458
pubmed: 29040335
Oncologist. 2016 Nov;21(11):1279-1282
pubmed: 27742905
Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43
pubmed: 9505581
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep;96(3):295-301
pubmed: 25097150
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9
pubmed: 19879711
Med Decis Making. 1996 Jan-Mar;16(1):58-64
pubmed: 8717600
Ann Surg. 2016 Jan;263(1):1-6
pubmed: 26649587
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):3302-12
pubmed: 25496598
Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30
pubmed: 7898294
Soc Sci Med. 1997 Mar;44(5):681-92
pubmed: 9032835
JAMA Surg. 2021 May 1;156(5):489-495
pubmed: 33533898
Ecancermedicalscience. 2010;4:187
pubmed: 22276038
J Clin Oncol. 2002 May 1;20(9):2229-39
pubmed: 11980994
J Patient Exp. 2021 May 20;8:23743735211018066
pubmed: 34179444
Cancer Med. 2021 Sep;10(17):5907-5916
pubmed: 34328273
Health Serv Res. 2005 Jun;40(3):745-67
pubmed: 15960689
Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):281-92
pubmed: 12926578
Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):69-84
pubmed: 26669902
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):114-31
pubmed: 25351843
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 3;368(1):6-8
pubmed: 23281971
Ann Surg. 2021 Jun 1;273(6):1127-1134
pubmed: 31663968
BMC Palliat Care. 2018 May 11;17(1):74
pubmed: 29747628
JAMA Surg. 2022 May 1;157(5):406-413
pubmed: 35319737
Med Decis Making. 2016 Aug;36(6):777-90
pubmed: 26975351
J Med Ethics. 1995 Dec;21(6):327-31
pubmed: 8778455
Surgery. 2009 Sep;146(3):435-43
pubmed: 19715800
BMC Womens Health. 2019 Jul 2;19(1):86
pubmed: 31266493
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Apr;59(561):e116-33
pubmed: 19341547
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Apr;21(4):1138-46
pubmed: 24390708
Br J Surg. 2016 Feb;103(3):257-66
pubmed: 26785646
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jul;23(7):2137-45
pubmed: 26786091
CMAJ. 1995 May 1;152(9):1423-33
pubmed: 7728691
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Oct;98(10):1172-9
pubmed: 26215573