Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer (<i>Br J Surg</i> DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7537)

Blazeby, Jane

doi:10.1002/bjs.7585

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What constitutes sufficient information and who should decide this remains debatable. One promising avenue is the work by Blazeby et al on core disclosure sets in routine clinical care, which could draw in a range of stakeholders (patients, clinicians, sponsors, regulators) in the context of research [30,31]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informing Potential Participants about Research: Observational Study with an Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess: 1) the feasibility of electronic information provision; 2) gather evidence on the topics and level of detail of information potential research participant’s accessed; 3) to assess satisfaction and understanding.DesignObservational study with an embedded randomised controlled trial.SettingLow risk intervention study based in primary care.ParticipantsWhite British & Irish, South Asian and African-Caribbean subjects aged between 40-74 years eligible for a blood pressure monitoring study.InterventionsPDF copy of the standard paper participant information sheet (PDF-PIS) and an electronic Interactive Information Sheet (IIS) where participants could choose both the type and level of detail accessed.Main Outcome Measures1) Proportion of participants providing an email address and accessing electronic information 2) Willingness to participate in a recruitment clinic. 3) Type and depth of information accessed on the IIS. 4) Participant satisfaction and understanding.Results1160 participants were eligible for the study. Of these, 276 (24%) provided an active email address, of whom 84 did not respond to the email. 106 responded to the email but chose not to access any electronic information and were therefore ineligible for randomisation. 42 were randomised to receive the PDF-PIS and 44 to receive the IIS (with consent rates of 48% and 36%, respectively; odds ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 1.4). Electronic observation of information accessed by potential participants showed 41% chose to access no information and only 9% accessed the detail presented on the Research Ethics Committee approved participant information sheet before booking to attend a recruitment clinic for the intervention study. 63 of the 106 participants (59%) who chose not to access any electronic information also booked an appointment.ConclusionsCurrent written information about research may not be read, emphasising the importance of the consent interview and consideration of new ways of presenting complex information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informing Potential Participants about Research: Observational Study with an Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Oesophagectomy is associated with mortality and morbidity and detrimental impact on QOL [ 15 ]. Adequate preoperative information is therefore essential, but little research has investigated information provision in this setting and it is currently difficult to know how much should be considered ‘enough’ [ 16 ]. This study explored verbal information provision by surgeons during pre-operative consultations, and patient preferences for information about oesophageal cancer surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What surgeons tell patients and what patients want to know before major cancer surgery: a qualitative study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe information surgeons impart to patients and information patients want about surgery for cancer is important but rarely examined. This study explored information provided by surgeons and patient preferences for information in consultations in which surgery for oesophageal cancer surgery was discussed.MethodsPre-operation consultations in which oesophagectomy was discussed were studied in three United Kingdom hospitals and patients were subsequently interviewed. Consultations and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed in full and anonymized. Interviews elicited views about the information provided by surgeons and patients’ preferences for information. Thematic analysis of consultation-interview pairs was used to investigate similarities and differences in the information provided by surgeons and desired by patients.ResultsFifty two audio-recordings from 31 patients and 7 surgeons were obtained (25 consultations and 27 patient interviews). Six consultations were not recorded because of equipment failure and four patients declined an interview. Surgeons all provided consistent, extensive information on technical operative details and in-hospital surgical risks. Consultations rarely included discussion of the longer-term outcomes of surgery. Whilst patients accepted that information about surgery and risks was necessary, they really wanted details about long-term issues including recovery, impact on quality of life and survival.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated a need for surgeons to provide information of importance to patients concerning the longer term outcomes of surgery. It is proposed that “core information sets” are developed, based on surgeons’ and patients’ views, to use as a minimum in consultations to initiate discussion and meet information needs prior to cancer surgery.

show abstract

Operation des Primärtumors beim metastasierten Magenkarzinom

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer (Br J Surg DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7537)

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Informing Potential Participants about Research: Observational Study with an Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial

Informing Potential Participants about Research: Observational Study with an Embedded Randomized Controlled Trial

What surgeons tell patients and what patients want to know before major cancer surgery: a qualitative study

Operation des Primärtumors beim metastasierten Magenkarzinom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About