The impact of patient demographics on involvement in cancer care decisions in the US.

Abstract

e18746 Background: As the oncology market continues to expand and more treatment options become available, the potential for highly personalized cancer care increases. In recent years, emphasis has been placed on patient involvement in treatment decisions, aiding physicians in generating care plans that focus on individual preferences and priorities. Shared decision making between patients and healthcare providers has been shown to improve patients’ perceptions and quality of life throughout the continuum of care (1). Methods: The Ipsos Global Oncology Monitor is an online, multi-center medical chart review of oncology patients receiving drug therapy. 470 cancer-treating physicians in the United States were screened for seniority and caseload and submitted data on 64,124 cancer patients (aggregate; all tumour types) between January 2022 to December 2022. Data included tumor type, age, gender identity, ECOG performance score and treatments received. The level of patient involvement in care decisions was determined by sampled physicians and recorded on a scale of 1-10 (1 = low involvement, 10 = high involvement). Results: Reported patient engagement with treatment was generally high, with an average involvement score of 7.50. 45% of sampled physicians rated patient involvement as a score of 9 or higher. In comparison to the entire study pool, reported patients diagnosed with breast cancer (7.89), non-small cell lung cancer (7.66), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (7.85) and colorectal cancers (7.64) all had significantly higher average involvement levels (p < 0.05). In contrast, individuals diagnosed with prostate tumors or myeloma recorded ratings significantly lower than the average (7.03 and 7.44, respectively). In relation to gender identity, reported female patients were significantly more likely to be engaged with their care decisions (7.70) than their male counterparts (7.25). Additionally, ECOG performance scores and individual involvement seemed to align: patients with an ECOG score of 0 had the highest rated involvement (7.82) and as ECOG scores worsened, the average scores fell near or below the wider reported patient cohort mean. Conclusions: Results from this study highlight that reported US patient involvement in cancer treatment decisions is generally high, reinforcing the importance of joint evaluation in bettering care outcomes. However, specific patient cohorts are more likely to be highly involved than others. These discrepancies merit a more conscious effort to support patient engagement and continue improving quality of care. Further investigation using comparator cohort is warranted. https://participatorymedicine.org/journal/columns/innovations/2017/04/13/the-future-of-patient-engagement-in-the-oncology-setting-how-practical-patient-engagement-recommendations-and-innovative-inter-professional-education-can-drive-change/.