Breast Cancer Patients’ Treatment Expectations after Exposure to the Decision Aid Program Adjuvant Online: The Influence of Numeracy

Abstract

The decision aid called ‘‘Adjuvant Online’’ (Adjuvant! for short) helps breast cancer patients make treatment decisions by providing numerical estimates of treatment efficacy (e.g., 10-y relapse or survival). Studies exploring how patients’ numeracy interacts with the estimates provided by Adjuvant! are lacking. Pooling across 2 studies totaling 105 women with estrogen receptor—positive, early-stage breast cancer, the authors explored patients’ treatment expectations, perceived benefit from treatments, and confidence of personal benefit from treatments. Patients who were more numerate were more likely to provide estimates of cancer-free survival that matched the estimates provided by Adjuvant! for each treatment option compared with patients with lower numeracy (odds ratios of 1.6 to 2.4). As estimates of treatment efficacy provided by Adjuvant! increased, so did patients’ estimates of cancer-free survival (0.37 > r_s > 0.48) and their perceptions of treatment benefit from hormonal therapy (r_s = 0.28) and combined therapy (r_s = 0.27). These relationships were significantly more pronounced for those with higher numeracy, especially for perceived benefit of combined therapy. Results suggest that numeracy influences a patient’s ability to interpret numerical estimates of treatment efficacy from decision aids such as Adjuvant!.

Keywords

patient decision making risk communication or risk perception numeracy breast cancer/mammography health literacy.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hembroff LA , Holmes-Rovner M. , Wills CE Treatment decision-making and the form of risk communication: results of a factorial survey. BMC Med Inform Dec Making. 2004;4:20.

Studts JL , Abell TD , Roetzer LM , Albers AN , McMasters KM , Chao C. Preferences for different methods of communicating information regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Psycho-Oncol. 2005;14(8):647-60.

Takasugi M. , Iwamoto E. , Akashi-Tanaka S. , Kinoshita T. , Fukutomi T. , Kubouchi K. General aspects and specific issues of informed consent on breast cancer treatments . Breast Cancer. 2005;12(1):39-44.

Woloshin S. , Schwartz LM How can we help people make sense of medical data? Effect Clin Pract. 1999;2(4):176-83.

Levine MN , Gafni A. , Markham B. , MacFarlane D. A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient’s preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 117(1):53-8.

Ravdin PM , Siminoff LA , Davis GJ , et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(4):980-91.

Irwin E. , Arnold A. , Whelan TJ , Reyno LM , Cranton P. Offering a choice between two adjuvant chemotherapy regimens: a pilot study to develop a decision aid for women with breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;37(3):283-91.

Whelan T. , Sawka C. , Levine M. , et al. Helping patients make informed choices: a randomized trial of a decision aid for adjuvant chemotherapy in lymph node-negative breast cancer . J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(8):581-7.

Peele PB , Siminoff LA , Xu Y. , Ravdin PM Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(3):301-7.

10.

Siminoff LA , Gordon NH , Silverman P. , Budd T. , Ravdin PM A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer. Psychol Oncol. 2006;15:1001-13.

11.

Lipkus IM , Samsa G. , Rimer BK , General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37-44.

12.

Mackillop WJ , Stewart WE , Ginsburg AD , Stewart SS Cancer patients’ perceptions of their disease and its treatment. Br J Cancer. 1988;58(3):355-8.

13.

Eidinger RN , Schapira DV Cancer patients’ insight into their treatment, prognosis, and unconventional therapies. Cancer. 1984;53(12):2736-40.

14.

Siminoff LA , Fetting JH , Abeloff MD Doctor-patient communication about breast cancer adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol. 1989; 7(9):1192-200.

15.

Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Fagerlin A. , Ubel PA improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options via simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113(12):3382-90.

16.

Fagerlin A. , Zikmund-Fisher BJ , Ubel PA , Jankovic A. , Derry H. , Smith DM Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS). Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672-80.

17.

Hutton DW , Belkora JK , Shachter RD , Moore DH Are patients getting the ‘‘gist’’ in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer treatment. J Cancer Educ. 2009;24(3):194-9.

18.

Peters E. , Slovic P. , Västfjäll D. , Mertz CK Intuitive numbers guide decisions. Judgm Decis Mak. 2008;3(8):619-35.

19.

Galesic M. , Garcia-Retamero R. , Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communication medical risks: overcoming low numeracy . Health Psychol. 2009;28(2):210-6.

20.

Dieckmann NF , Slovic P. , Peters, E. The use of narrative evidence and explicit probability by decision makers varying in numeracy. Risk Anal. 2009;29(10):1473-88.

21.

Peters E. , Dieckmann N. , Dixon A. , Hibbard JH , Mertz CK Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007;64(2):169-90.

22.

Peters E. , Hibbard JH , Slovic P. , et al. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk and benefit information. Health Aff. 2007;26(3):741-8.

23.

Reyna VF How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2): 60-6.

24.

Peters E. , Dieckmann NF , Västfjäll D. , Mertz CK , Slovic P. , Hibbard J. Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions . J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009;15(3): 213-27.

25.

Nickerson RS How we know-and sometimes misjudge- what others know: imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(6):737-59.

26.

Nickerson RS The projective way of knowing: a useful heuristic that sometimes misleads. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10(5): 168-72.

27.

Lipkus IM Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696-713.

28.

Buyse M. , Loi S. , van’t Veer L. , et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(17):1183-92.