Cargando…

Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study

Over the past decade, there has been a growing development of innovative technologies to treat cancer. Many of these technologies are expensive and not funded by health funds. The present study examined physicians’ perceptions of the ethical and clinical aspects of the recommendation and use of unfu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bashkin, Osnat, Dopelt, Keren, Asna, Noam, Davidovitch, Nadav
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34436020
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28040254
_version_ 1783744172439633920
author Bashkin, Osnat
Dopelt, Keren
Asna, Noam
Davidovitch, Nadav
author_facet Bashkin, Osnat
Dopelt, Keren
Asna, Noam
Davidovitch, Nadav
author_sort Bashkin, Osnat
collection PubMed
description Over the past decade, there has been a growing development of innovative technologies to treat cancer. Many of these technologies are expensive and not funded by health funds. The present study examined physicians’ perceptions of the ethical and clinical aspects of the recommendation and use of unfunded technologies for cancer treatment. This mixed-methods study surveyed 127 oncologists regarding their perceptions toward using unfunded innovative cancer treatment technologies, followed by in-depth interviews with 16 oncologists. Most respondents believed that patients should be offered all treatment alternatives, regardless of their financial situation. However, 59% indicated that they often face dilemmas regarding recommending new unfunded treatments to patients with financial difficulties and without private health insurance. Over a third (38%) stated that they felt uncomfortable discussing the cost of treatment with patients. A predictive model found that physicians facing patients whose medical condition worsened due to an inability to access new treatments, and who expressed the opinion that physicians can assist in locating funding for patients who cannot afford treatments, were more likely to recommend unfunded innovative therapies to patients (F = 5.22, R(2) = 0.15, p < 0.001). Subsequent in-depth interviews revealed four key themes: economic considerations in choosing therapy, patient–physician communication, the public healthcare fund, and discussion of treatment costs. Physicians feel a professional commitment to offer patients the best medical care and a moral duty to discuss costs and minimize patients’ financial difficulty. There is a need for careful and balanced use of innovative life-prolonging technologies while putting patients at the center of discourse on this complex and controversial issue. It is essential to develop a psychosocial support program for physicians and patients dealing with ethical and psychosocial dilemmas and to set guidelines for oncologists to conduct a comprehensive and collaborative physician–patient discourse regarding all aspects of treatment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8395438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83954382021-08-28 Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study Bashkin, Osnat Dopelt, Keren Asna, Noam Davidovitch, Nadav Curr Oncol Article Over the past decade, there has been a growing development of innovative technologies to treat cancer. Many of these technologies are expensive and not funded by health funds. The present study examined physicians’ perceptions of the ethical and clinical aspects of the recommendation and use of unfunded technologies for cancer treatment. This mixed-methods study surveyed 127 oncologists regarding their perceptions toward using unfunded innovative cancer treatment technologies, followed by in-depth interviews with 16 oncologists. Most respondents believed that patients should be offered all treatment alternatives, regardless of their financial situation. However, 59% indicated that they often face dilemmas regarding recommending new unfunded treatments to patients with financial difficulties and without private health insurance. Over a third (38%) stated that they felt uncomfortable discussing the cost of treatment with patients. A predictive model found that physicians facing patients whose medical condition worsened due to an inability to access new treatments, and who expressed the opinion that physicians can assist in locating funding for patients who cannot afford treatments, were more likely to recommend unfunded innovative therapies to patients (F = 5.22, R(2) = 0.15, p < 0.001). Subsequent in-depth interviews revealed four key themes: economic considerations in choosing therapy, patient–physician communication, the public healthcare fund, and discussion of treatment costs. Physicians feel a professional commitment to offer patients the best medical care and a moral duty to discuss costs and minimize patients’ financial difficulty. There is a need for careful and balanced use of innovative life-prolonging technologies while putting patients at the center of discourse on this complex and controversial issue. It is essential to develop a psychosocial support program for physicians and patients dealing with ethical and psychosocial dilemmas and to set guidelines for oncologists to conduct a comprehensive and collaborative physician–patient discourse regarding all aspects of treatment. MDPI 2021-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8395438/ /pubmed/34436020 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28040254 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Bashkin, Osnat
Dopelt, Keren
Asna, Noam
Davidovitch, Nadav
Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study
title Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study
title_full Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study
title_fullStr Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study
title_full_unstemmed Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study
title_short Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System—A Mixed-Methods Study
title_sort recommending unfunded innovative cancer therapies: ethical vs. clinical perspectives among oncologists on a public healthcare system—a mixed-methods study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8395438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34436020
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28040254
work_keys_str_mv AT bashkinosnat recommendingunfundedinnovativecancertherapiesethicalvsclinicalperspectivesamongoncologistsonapublichealthcaresystemamixedmethodsstudy
AT dopeltkeren recommendingunfundedinnovativecancertherapiesethicalvsclinicalperspectivesamongoncologistsonapublichealthcaresystemamixedmethodsstudy
AT asnanoam recommendingunfundedinnovativecancertherapiesethicalvsclinicalperspectivesamongoncologistsonapublichealthcaresystemamixedmethodsstudy
AT davidovitchnadav recommendingunfundedinnovativecancertherapiesethicalvsclinicalperspectivesamongoncologistsonapublichealthcaresystemamixedmethodsstudy