Fatigante2020

From emcawiki
Revision as of 10:41, 15 January 2021 by EmilyHofstetter (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Fatigante2020
BibType ARTICLE
Key Fatigante2020
Author(s) Marilena Fatigante, John Heritage, Francesca Alby, Cristina Zucchermaglio
Title Presenting treatment options in breast cancer consultations: Advice and consent in Italian medical care
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Italy, Oncology, Treatment recommendations, Breast cancer, Informed consent, Patient-centered communication
Publisher
Year 2020
Language English
City
Month
Journal Social Science & Medicine
Volume
Number 266
Pages 113175
URL Link
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113175
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Variety, complexity and uncertainty in the therapy outcomes of cancer illness make the treatment recommendation (TR) in oncology a “monumentally difficult task”. Previous studies have distinguished unilateral and bilateral formats of treatment recommendations, accordingly to whether, or to what extent, the patient’s perspective is included in the consideration of therapeutic options. Others have also shown how the oncologists’ presentation of therapeutic options varied accordingly to the severity of the diagnosis and the availability of alternatives. Yet, no study has systemically dentified and compared components of treatment recommendation in oncology on a common set of patients and clinicians.

This paper analyzes how different options in breast cancer treatments - radiotherapy, hormone therapy and chemotherapy - are presented and discussed in a set of 12 first post-surgical breast cancer visits carried out by two oncologists of high experience and seniority in two Italian hospitals. Treatment recommendation sequences involving these three option types were analyzed using the methods of conversation analysis. They were also coded for the mention of side effects and treatment burden, and for whether consent to the recommendation was invited, or expressed by the patient. Results show that radiotherapy is presented as presupposed as an extension of surgery and is not further discussed, and hormone therapy is delivered as good news and as not implying any health or lifestyle burdens. Treatment burdens were raised in the much more extensive discussions of chemotherapy, which were also accompanied by a higher chance that the patient was asked for consent to therapy.

Implications are drawn as regards the extent to which clinical practice meets theory in communication protocols available in oncology, and how to consider the doctor-patient partnership and the concept of shared decision-making in such an encounter.

Notes