Syringe with drugs for cancer treatment.
Credit: Getty Images
Bengaluru: Can extensive knowledge be a burden? A research paper on the decision-making aspects of cancer treatment has revealed that patients and caretakers indeed face the 'problem of plenty' when it comes to choosing the right treatment from a myriad of options.
The research paper titled ‘How are Cancer Treatment Decisions Made? Insights from a Qualitative Study Conducted Among Selected Cancer Patients in Bengaluru City’ says that elaborate research into cancer treatment has resulted in multiple options, leaving patients and caretakers often confused.
This confusion, coupled with shock and trauma, has made the decision-making on cancer treatment a practitioner-lead approach rather than a patient-centric approach, the research by the Institute of Social and Economic Change (ISEC) has revealed.
The study notes with concern that many patients are dropping out after initial treatment, opting for cheaper facilities or transitioning to naturopathy and other methods as their needs pertaining to affordability, suffering, and uncertainties of outcomes are not considered during the initial phase of treatment.
"The huge amount of information and the new treatment options should have been a boon to the patients. But unfortunately, this is creating a confusion, and most patients and caretakers now allow the doctors to decide on the treatment line. This creates problems in the long run since cancer treatment can run into years. Many patients exhaust the funds available and shift out to other treatment options eventually," Professor Sobin George, one of the authors of the paper, told DH.
The paper suggested an information-sharing model where the patient and caretakers are given information on various options and the financial and health impacts of each of them. "Many patients may want to prioritise the quality of life over longevity. Such needs should be considered," Professor George said.
While acknowledging that the treatment decision might be predominantly practitioner-led, oncologist Dr Vishal Rao suggested that institutions adopt a standard protocol. "Since 80 per cent of healthcare providers in India are private practitioners, an institutional protocol is crucial. A blend of academia and industry will help understand the patients’ needs and communicate effectively with them," said Dr Rao, who is also a member of the Karnataka State Vision Group for Biotechnology.
The paper also observes that the overdose of information could be causing confusion among patients and in a few cases, this has caused a significant delay in initiation of the treatment.
The paper shows that on an average, patients took up to 21.6 days to start treatment after initial diagnosis. Experts opine that this could also be a concerning trend since early treatment is key to increasing the survival rate.
“In another study, we also observed that the taboo and fear in society had left many patients unwilling to seek support even after observing the symptoms of the disease. The patients who were a part of the study conducted by ISEC, on average, took 180 days to seek medical help after experiencing cancer symptoms, and in a few patients, this went up to as long as 400 days,” Professor George added.