The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once

Breast cancer patients must often decide between multiple adjuvant therapy options to prevent cancer recurrence. Standard practice, as implemented in current decision support tools, is to present information about all options simultaneously, but psychology research suggests that sequential decision processes might improve decision making. We tested whether asking women to consider hormonal therapy and chemotherapy separately would improve women’s risk knowledge and/or affect treatment intentions. We conducted an Internet-administered experimental survey of a demographically diverse sample of 1,781 women ages 40–74. Participants were randomized to experience a standard, comprehensive decision process versus sequential (one at a time) decisions regarding adjuvant therapy options for a hypothetical breast cancer patient with an estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumor. We assessed comprehension of key statistics, perceptions of treatment effectiveness, and perceived interest in adjuvant chemotherapy, as well as participants’ numeracy levels. When participants made sequential decisions, they demonstrated greater comprehension of decision-relevant risk statistics, as compared to when they made decisions all at once (all P’s < 0.001). Among higher-numeracy participants, those making sequential decisions were less interested in chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Lower-numeracy participants who considered all options simultaneously were insensitive to the degree of risk reduction, but those who made sequential decisions were sensitive (P = 0.03). In conclusion, presenting adjuvant therapy options sequentially improves women’s comprehension of incremental treatment benefit and increases less numerate women’s sensitivity to the magnitude of the achievable risk reduction over standard, all at once approaches. Sequential approaches to adjuvant therapy decisions may reduce use of chemotherapy among those at low risk for recurrence.

[1]  W. Levinson,et al.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. , 1999, JAMA.

[2]  Ross D. Shachter,et al.  Are patients getting the “gist” in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer treatment , 2009, Journal of Cancer Education.

[3]  P. Ubel,et al.  A Demonstration of ‘‘Less Can Be More’’ in Risk Graphics , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  P. Whitney,et al.  Impulsive decision making and working memory. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  M. Brundage,et al.  Further Insight into the Perception of Quantitative Information: Judgments of Gist in Treatment Decisions , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[6]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[7]  P. Ravdin,et al.  Decreased Use of Adjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid with Individualized Risk Information , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  A. Tversky Intransitivity of preferences. , 1969 .

[10]  P. Ubel,et al.  Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  J. Shanteau,et al.  Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research: List of Contributors , 2003 .

[12]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Alternate Methods of Framing Information About Medication Side Effects: Incremental Risk Versus Total Risk of Occurrence , 2008, Journal of health communication.

[13]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  “Is 28% Good or Bad?” Evaluability and Preference Reversals in Health Care Decisions , 2004, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  P. Ubel,et al.  Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[16]  P. Ravdin,et al.  A decision aid to assist in adjuvant therapy choices for breast cancer , 2006, Psycho-oncology.

[17]  B. Schwartz The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .

[18]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[19]  P. Ubel,et al.  Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics? , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[20]  Ellen Peters,et al.  Breast Cancer Patients’ Treatment Expectations after Exposure to the Decision Aid Program Adjuvant Online: The Influence of Numeracy , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[21]  Erika A. Waters,et al.  Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[22]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Less Is More in Presenting Quality Information to Consumers , 2007, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[23]  L. Esserman,et al.  Risk communication with patients with breast cancer: cautionary notes about printing Adjuvant! estimates. , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[24]  Elizabeth S. Veinott,et al.  Hard decisions, bad decisions: On decision quality and decision aiding , 2003 .

[25]  Melanie Price,et al.  Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-Accuracy, comprehension and preferences. , 2007, Patient education and counseling.

[26]  Daniel F Chen,et al.  Oncologist use of the Adjuvant! model for risk communication: a pilot study examining patient knowledge of 10-year prognosis , 2009, BMC Cancer.

[27]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics , 2008, Cancer.