Priorities for the Head and Neck Cancer Patient, their Companion and Members of the Multidisciplinary Team and Decision Regret

Gill, Simrat; Frew, J.; Fry, Alastair; Adam, Jennifer; Paleri, Vinidh; Dobrowsky, W.; Chatterjee, Sayan; Kelly, Charles

doi:10.1016/j.clon.2011.03.014

Cited by 63 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study was published after we had completed our data collection, so that we could not account for it when pre‐testing the DRS‐C. We found one study that explored decision regret in family members actively taking care of people with cancer or patients with cancer . For this small sample of head and neck cancer patient caregivers, mean regret scores were significantly lower (M = 10.5, SD = 9.9) compared with our sample (N = 30).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Assessing decision regret in caregivers of deceased German people with cancer—A psychometric validation of the Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers

Haun

Schakowski

Preibsch

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Decisional regret during or after medical treatments is linked to significant distress. Regret affects not only patients but also caregivers having an active or passive role during decision making. The Decision Regret Scale (DRS) is a self‐report measure for regret in patients after treatment decisions. However, practical and psychometrically robust instruments assessing regret in caregivers are lacking. Objective To develop and validate a caregiver version of the DRS (Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers [DRS‐C]). Design Psychometric validation based on a web survey. Setting and participants 361 caregivers of deceased German people/patients with cancer. Main variables studied Besides structural validity and test‐retest reliability, we evaluated measurement invariance accounting for gender, age and closeness of relationship, and tested hypotheses on convergent/discriminant validity. Results Forty‐five per cent of all caregivers demonstrated decision regret. Confirmatory factor analyses strongly supported the unidimensional structure of the DRS‐C and pointed to strict invariance. The DRS‐C demonstrated very good internal consistency (α = 0.83, 95% CI [0.81, 0.86]) and test‐retest reliability (ICC [A,1] = 0.73, 95% CI [0.59, 0.83]) along with sound convergent/discriminant validity. Concerning responsiveness, DRS‐C scores remained stable over a 12‐week period in 83.3% of all caregivers. Receiver operating characteristic analysis yielded a cut point of 43 for the identification of significant decision regret (AUC = 0.62, 95% CI [0.56, 0.68]). Discussion and conclusions The lack of a gold standard instrument prevented us from examining the criterion validity and determining a minimally important difference. Nevertheless, the DRS‐C provides valid and reliable information regarding caregiver regret following medical decisions. Above all, it captures a crucial aspect of the treatment experience in caregivers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Assessing decision regret in caregivers of deceased German people with cancer—A psychometric validation of the Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers

Haun

Schakowski

Preibsch

et al. 2019

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, a study by Gill et al compared outcome priorities among patients, their companions, and the multidisciplinary medical team [19]. In their study, when the three parties showed unified agreement in outcome priorities, it was correlated with lower post-treatment regret.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidisciplinary Service Utilization Pattern by Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Study

Junn

Kim

Zahurak

et al. 2012

International Journal of Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To analyze the patterns and associations of adjunctive service visits by head and neck cancer patients receiving primary, concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Methods. Retrospective chart review of patients receiving adjunctive support during a uniform chemoradiation regimen for stages III-IV head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Univariate and multivariate models for each outcome were obtained from simple and multivariate linear regression analyses. Results. Fifty-two consecutive patients were assessed. Female gender, single marital status, and nonprivate insurance were factors associated with an increased number of social work visits. In a multivariate analysis, female gender and marital status were related to increased social work services. Female gender and stage IV disease were significant for increased nursing visits. In a multivariate analysis for nursing visits, living greater than 20 miles between home and hospital was a negative predictive factor. Conclusion. Treatment of advanced stage head and neck cancer with concurrent chemoradiation warrants a multidisciplinary approach. Female gender, single marital status, and stage IV disease were correlated with increased utilization of social work and nursing services. Distance over 20 miles from the center was a negative factor. This information may help guide the treatment team to allocate resources for the comprehensive care of patients.

show abstract

“…As many clinicians can attest, guiding a nonsmoking, physically active 50‐year‐old with low‐volume, HPV‐associated OPC through the treatment decision‐making process is increasingly complex . In the scenario in which various curative treatment options exist and functional outcomes are prioritized, decisional conflict can arise with the potential for decisional regret among survivors . Decisional conflict refers to the internal uncertainty that a person may experience when a decision involves weighing the benefits, risks, and alternatives of different options (such as treatment modalities).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptom burden as a driver of decisional regret in long‐term oropharyngeal carcinoma survivors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Priorities for the Head and Neck Cancer Patient, their Companion and Members of the Multidisciplinary Team and Decision Regret

Cited by 63 publications

References 18 publications

Assessing decision regret in caregivers of deceased German people with cancer—A psychometric validation of the Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers

Assessing decision regret in caregivers of deceased German people with cancer—A psychometric validation of the Decision Regret Scale for Caregivers

Multidisciplinary Service Utilization Pattern by Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Study

Symptom burden as a driver of decisional regret in long‐term oropharyngeal carcinoma survivors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About