ObjectivesOur aim was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the impact of patient decision aids (PDA) on patients facing treatment decisions for colorectal cancer.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesSources included Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from inception to June, 20, 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, mixed methods and case series in which a PDA for colorectal cancer treatment was used. Qualitative studies were excluded from our review.Data extraction and synthesisFollowing execution of the search strategy by a medical librarian, two blinded independent reviewers identified articles for inclusion. Two blinded reviewers were also responsible for data extraction, risk of bias and study quality assessments. Any conflict in article inclusion or extraction was resolved by discussion.ResultsOut of 3773 articles identified, three met our inclusion criteria: one RCT, one before-and-after study and one mixed-method study. In these studies, the use of a PDA for colorectal cancer treatment was associated with increased patient knowledge, satisfaction and preparation for making a decision. On quality assessment, two of three studies were judged to be of low quality.ConclusionA paucity of evidence exists on the effect of PDA for colorectal cancer treatment with existing evidence being largely of low quality. Further investigation is required to determine the effect of decision aids for colorectal cancer treatment as well as reasons for the lack of PDA development and implementation in this area.Prospero registration numberCRD42018095153.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo (1) characterise (A) the lived experiences and (B) information needs of patients with rectal cancer; and (2) compare to the perceived lived experiences and information needs of colorectal surgeons.DesignWe conducted 1-hour semistructured qualitative interviews, dual independent transcript coding and thematic analysis.Setting/participantsInterviews included rectal cancer survivors (stages I–III), some accompanied by caregivers, at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and experienced colorectal surgeons.ResultsWe performed 25 interviews involving 30 participants, including 15 patients with 5 caregivers, plus 10 physicians. Two major themes emerged. First, patients reported major impacts on their lives following rectal cancer, including on their everyday lives and leisure activities; identity, self-confidence and intimacy; mental health, especially anxiety. These impacts were mediated by their medical experiences, lifestyle and attitudes. Second, the diversity of effects on patients’ lives means that care, counselling and information needs should be personalised for a better medical experience and outcomes. Surgeons did not report knowledge of the full range of patient experiences and reported limited counselling in key areas, particularly concerning intimacy and mental health.ConclusionRectal cancer diagnosis, treatment and survivorship dramatically affect all people, regardless of which surgical treatment they undergo. Effects are varied and necessitate customised care, counselling and information, which surgeons are not currently providing. Because rectal cancer affects every part of patients’ lives, they need holistic support and information. Patients would benefit from substantial support after treatment as they establish a new normal.

Aim The aim of this work was to evaluate physicians' perceptions of ostomates' quality of life (QoL) and comfort of care among an international sample of physicians caring for ostomates. Method This was a cross‐sectional survey study. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians (PCP), gastroenterologists (GI), and general surgeons (GS) from three continents using the SERMO online physician platform. We piloted the survey for content, clarity and domain development using a pilot sample of physicians from each speciality before use. We summarized responses to questions related to physician comfort of ostomate care with descriptive statistics. We conducted multiple logistic regression with the primary outcome of physician perception of ostomate QoL. Results A total of 617 physicians (PCP 264, GI 176, GS 177) completed the survey representing North America, Europe and Australia similarly. The average age was 46 years and 21% were women. Ninety per cent of physicians care for an ostomate at least once per month. Eighty eight per cent had access to enterostomal nurses. Eighty two per cent of physicians believed that ostomates have decreased QoL. Forty seven per cent believed that ostomates have decreased overall health. Almost half of respondents answered incorrectly to a ‘bogus question’ citing fake clinical evidence supporting a negative impact of ostomies on social relationships. Increased physician comfort in ostomy care (OR 1.30, p = 0.04) and US‐based physicians (OR 1.75, p = 0.01) were associated with increased odds of answering that ostomates have no decreased QoL. Conclusion Among a diverse international sample, most physicians believe that ostomates have decreased QoL but not overall health. Physician implicit bias, physician comfort and geographical variability account for these findings. Targeted efforts to increase physician comfort in ostomate care and establish universal best practices is needed.