The increasing prevalence of cancer and the decreasing number of oncology specialists in Europe’s workforce have led patients having to self-manage their conditions with the help of a health care professional. Ensuring cancer patients’ good understanding of molecular profiling data is crucial for their active participation in illness-related decisions. Although shared decision making improves patients’ knowledge and consideration of their needs, several difficulties remain in implementing shared decision making in cancer care. The objective of the research is to examine the relationship between sociodemographic aspects and knowledge of cancer-related topics and willingness to participate in cancer care. A cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire was conducted, including 1066 respondents among the population of Estonia. Logistic regression was used to answer research questions. There is a lack of knowledge and willingness of patients and their relatives to participate in shared decision making. Unlike in previous studies, higher readiness was observed among the ethnic minority and rural citizens. In addition to the factors previously identified, there is a need to consider a potential role of cultural and historical background of the health care system in determining the willingness and readiness of the general public to participate in shared decision making. These findings highlight the potential uniqueness of societies, in which paternalistic and autonomous approaches to patient care clash, and similar results may be found in other countries with a Soviet legacy. If there is a lack of readiness or willingness of a patient to participate, a physician should provide alternative means of support.
1. WHO. Incidence, mortality and prevalence by cancer site, 2020.
https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/populations/990-eu-27-fact-sheets.pdf (accessed 2022-01-05).
2. WHO/IARC. Estimated number of new cases from 2020 to 2040. https://gco.iarc.fr/tomorrow/en/dataviz/bars?mode= population (accessed 2022-01-05).
3. National Institute for Health Development. PK10: Pahaloomuliste kasvajate esmasjuhud paikme, soo ja vanuse- rühma järgi (New cases of malignant tumors by site, sex and age group), 2020.
https://statistika.tai.ee/pxweb/et/Andmebaas/Andmebaas__02Haigestumus__04PahaloomulisedKasvajad/PK10.px/table/tableViewLayout2/
(accessed 2021-07-07).
4. National Institute for Health Development. SD21: Surmad põhjuse, soo ja vanuserühma järgi (Deaths by cause, sex and age group), 2021.
https://statistika.tai.ee/pxweb/et/Andme baas/Andmebaas__01Rahvastik__04Surmad/SD21.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ (accessed 2022-01-07).
5. Krzyszczyk, P., Acevedo, A., Davidoff, E. J., Timmins, L. M., Marrero-Berrios, I., Patel, M. et al. The growing role of precision and personalized medicine for cancer treatment. Technology, 2018, 6, 79–100.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2339547818300020
6. Mathur, S. and Sutton, J. Personalized medicine could transform healthcare. Biomed. Rep., 2017, 7(1), 3–5.
https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2017.922
7. Kumar-Sinha, C. and Chinnaiyan, A. M. Precision oncology in the age of integrative genomics. Nat. Biotechnol., 2018, 36, 46–60.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4017
8. Schwartzberg, L., Kim, E. S., Liu, D. and Schrag, D. Precision oncology: Who, how, what, when, and when not? Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. book., 2017, 37, 160–169.
https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_174176
9. Wolyniec, K., Sharp, J., Lazarakis, S., Mileshkin, L. and Schofield, P. Understanding and information needs of cancer patients regarding treatment-focused genomic testing: A systematic review. Psychooncology, 2020, 29(4), 632–638.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5351
10. Nakayama, K., Osaka, W., Matsubara, N., Takeuchi, T., Toyoda, M., Noriyuki, O. et al. Shared decision making, physicians’ explanations, and treatment satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey of prostate cancer patients. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak., 2020, 20(1), 334.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01355-z
11. European Commission. Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.
https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-02/eu_cancer-plan_en_0.pdf (accessed 2021-04-20).
12. Maes-Carballo, M., Muñoz-Núñez, I., Martín-Díaz, M., Mignini, L., Bueno-Cavanillas, A. and Khan, K. S. Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review. Health Expect., 2020, 23(5), 1045–1064.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13112
13. National Institute for Health Development. Vähitõrje tegevuskava 2021–2030 (Cancer Action Plan 2021–2030).
https://intra.tai.ee/images/Vähitõrjeplaan_avalik_20.12.20.pdf (accessed 2021-03-26).
14. Katz, S. J., Belkora, J. and Elwyn, G. Shared decision making for treatment of cancer: challenges and opportunities. J. Oncol. Pract., 2014, 10, 206.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2014.001434
15. Covvey, J. R., Kamal, K. M., Gorse, E. E., Mehta, Z., Dhumal, T., Heidari, E. et al. Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in oncology: a systematic review of the literature. Support. Care Cancer, 2019, 27(5), 1613–1637.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-04675-7
16. Frerichs, W., Hahlweg, P., Müller, E., Adis, C. and Scholl, I. Shared decision-making in oncology – a qualitative analysis of healthcare providers’ views on current practice. PLoS One, 2016, 11(3), e0149789.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149789
17. Spees, L. P., Roberts, M. C., Freedman, A. N., Butler, E. N., Klein, W. M. P., Das, I. P. et al. Involving patients and their families in deciding to use next generation sequencing: results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. oncologists. Patient Educ. Couns, 2021, 104(1), 33–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.001
18. van Veenendaal, H., Voogdt-Pruis, H. R., Ubbink, D. T., van Weelw, E., Koco, L., Schuurman, M. et al. Evaluation of a multilevel implementation program for timeout and shared decision making in breast cancer care: a mixed methods study among 11 hospital teams. Patient Educ. Couns., 2022, 105(1), 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.05.005
19. Cockerham, W. C. Medical Sociology On The Move: New Directions In Theory. Springer, Berlin, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6193-3
20. Pellegrini, I., Rapti, M., Extra, J.-M., Petri-Cal, A., Apostolidis, T., Ferrero, J.-M. et al. Tailored chemotherapy based on tumour gene expression analysis: breast cancer patients’ misinterpretations and positive attitudes. Eur. J. Cancer Care, 2012, 21(2), 242–250.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01300.x
21. Keij, S. M., van Duijn-Bakker, N., Stiggelbout, A. M. and Pieterse, A. H. What makes a patient ready for shared decision making? A qualitative study. Patient Educ. Couns., 2021, 104(3), 571–577.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.031
22. European Commission. Eurobarometer Qualitative Study on patient involvement in healthcare.
https://ec.europa.eu/eip/ageing/library/eurobarometer-qualitative-study-patient-invo lvement-healthcare_en.html
(accessed 2021-03-19).
23. Liang, R., Meiser, B., Smith, S., Kasparian, N. A., Lewis, C. R., Chin, M. et al. Advanced cancer patients’ attitudes towards, and experiences with, screening for somatic mutations in tumours: a qualitative study. Eur. J. Cancer Care, 2017, 26(6), e12600.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12600
24. Gray, S. W., Hicks-Courant, K., Lathan, C. S., Garraway, L., Park, E. R. and Weeks, J. C. Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing. J. Oncol. Pract., 2012, 8(6), 329–335.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2012.000626
25. Gaston, C. M. and Mitchell, G. Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med., 2005, 61(10), 2252–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.015
26. Pritchard, D. E., Moeckel, F., Villa, M. S., Housman, L. T., McCarty, C. A. and McLeod, H. L. Strategies for integrating personalized medicine into healthcare practice. Per. Med., 2017, 14(2), 141–152.
https://doi.org/10.2217/pme-2016-0064
27. Kallaste, E., Järve, J., Sõmer, M., Lang, A. et al. Inimkeskse tervishoiu seiremetoodika väljatöötamine: lõpparuanne (Report of development of human health monitoring methodology). Sotsiaalministeerium, Tallinn, 2019 (in Estonian).
https://centar.ee/pdf/ee/2019_Inimkeskse_tervishoiu_seiremetoodika_valjatootamine.pdf (accessed 2021-05-15).
28. Ministry of Social Affairs. Eesti elanike hinnangud tervisele ja arstiabile (Estonian residents’ assessments of health and medical care), 2019 (in Estonian).
https://www.haigekassa.ee/sites/default/files/uuringud_aruanded/kuvandiuuring/Arstiabiuuringuaruanne2020.pdf
(accessed 2021-05-15).
29. Sandman, L. and Munthe, C. Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice. Health Care Anal., 2010, 18(1), 60–84.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-008-0108-6
30. Statistics Estonia. RV0222U: Population by sex, ethnic nationality and county, 1 January, administrative division as at 01.01.2018.
http://andmebaas.stat.ee/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RV0222U&lang=en (accessed 2021-07-06).
31. Lang, T. A. and Altman, D. G. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the ‘statistical analyses and methods in the published literature’ or the SAMPL guidelines. Int. J. Nurs. Stud., 2015, 52(1), 5–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.09.006
32. Yu, L., Zheng, F., Xiong, J. and Wu, X. Relationship of patient-centered communication and cancer risk information avoidance: A social cognitive perspective. Patient. Educ. Couns., 2021, 104(9), 2371–2377.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.004
33. Amuta, A. O., Chen, X., Mkuu, R. The effect of cancer information seeking on perceptions of cancer risks, fatalism, and worry among a U.S. national sample. Am. J. Heal. Educ., 2017, 48, 366–373.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2017.1358119
34. Anker, A. E., Reinhart, A. M. and Feeley, T. H. Health information seeking: A review of measures and methods. Patient Educ. Couns., 2011, 82, 346–354.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.008
35. Riigikogu. Personal Data Protection Act 2018.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/523012019001/consolide
36. Statistics Estonia. Income 2020.
https://www.stat.ee/en/find-statistics/statistics-theme/work-life/income (accessed 2021- 05-21).
37. National Institute for Health Development. ETU30: Haiguste esinemine soo ja vanuserühma järgi (Incidence of diseases by sex and age group).
https://statistika.tai.ee/pxweb/et/Andmebaas/Andmebaas__05Uuringud__01ETeU__03Haigused/ETU30.px/table/tableViewLayout2/
(accessed 2021-05-14).
38. Ministry of Social Affairs. Genome Project 2019.
https://www.sm.ee/en/news/genome-project-100000-samples-collected-2019-least-50000-more-people-can-join
(accessed 2021- 04-16).
39. Habicht, T., Reinap, M., Kasekamp, K., Sikkut, R., Aaben, L. and Van Ginneken, E. Estonia: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 2018, 20(1).
https://www.healthobservatory.eu (accessed 2021-04-15).
40. Rechel, B., Richardson, E. and Mckee, M. Trends in health systems in the former Soviet countries. Observatory Studies Series, 2014, 35.
https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/261271/Trends-in-health-systems-in-the-former-Soviet-countries.pdf
(accessed 2021-04-16).
41. Statistics Estonia. IT20: Arvuti ja koduse interneti- ühendusega leibkonnad tüübi ja elukoha järgi (Households with computer and home internet connection by type of and place of residence) 2021.
https://andmed.stat.ee/et/stat/majandus__infotehnoloogia__infotehnoloogia-leibkonnas/IT20
42. Uibu, M. and Vihalemm, T. Tervisepüüdlused ühiskonna polariseerijana (Pursuits to health as polarisers of the society). In Eesti ühiskond kiirenevas ajas(Estonian Society In An Accelerating Time) (Vihalemm, P., Lauristin, M., Kalmus, V. and Vihalemm, T., eds). Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, Tartu, 343–356.
43. Lubi, K., Raal, A. and Taba, P. Ethnic identity in transition: the potential impact of ethnicity on chronic illness’ medication adherence in post-Soviet country. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities, 2022, 9, 1089–1095.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01048-x
44. Vihalemm, P. and Lauristin, M. Hinnangud muutustele ja maailmavaatelised hoiakud. In Eesti ühiskond kiirenevas ajas (Estonian Society In An Accelerating Time) (Vihalemm, P., Lauristin, M., Kalmus, V. and Vihalemm, T., eds). Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, Tartu, 139–153.
45. Smith, S. G., Pandit, A., Rush, S. R., Wolf, M. S. and Simon, C. J. The role of patient activation in preferences for shared decision making: results from a national survey of U.S. adults. J. Health Commun., 2016, 21(1), 67–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1033115
46. Statistics Estonia. IT32: 16–74-aastased arvuti- ja inter- netikasutajad isikute rühma järgi (Computer and Internet users aged 16–74), 2020.
https://andmed.stat.ee/et/stat/majandus__infotehnoloogia__infotehnoloogia-leibkonnas/IT32/table/tableViewLayout1
(accessed 2021-07-07).
