Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 8.
Published in final edited form as: JAMA Oncol. 2015 Apr;1(1):50–58. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2014.112

Table 1.

Cohort characteristics and unadjusted associations with patient-reported quality and ratings of physician communication

No. of patients (%) No. of decisions for group rating treatment quality (%) % reporting excellent treatment quality P* No. of decisions for group rating physician communication (%) % reporting top rating P*
All patients N=5315 N=8191 (5170 patients) 67.8% N=4825 (4825 patients) 55.8%
Preferred role
 Patient-controlled 1921 (36) 2910 (36) 67.0% 0.13 1739 (36) 55.6% <0.001
 Shared 3080 (58) 4790 (59) 68.6% 2799 (58) 57.3%
 Physician-controlled 314 (6) 491 (6) 64.0% 287 (6) 42.5%
Actual role
 Patient-controlled --- 3262 (40) 68.1% <0.001 1914 (40) 57.3% <0.001
 Shared control --- 3855 (47) 70.0% 2264 (47) 59.0%
 Physician-controlled --- 1074 (13) 58.5% 647 (13) 40.5%
Decision type
 Surgery --- 3920 (48) 67.9% <0.001 3222 (67) 58.4% <0.001
 Chemotherapy --- 2991 (37) 66.1% 1603 (33) 50.5%
 Radiation --- 1280 (16) 71.3% --- N/A
Received treatment corresponding to decision
 No --- 0 (0) N/A N/A 309 (6) 53.1% 0.32
 Yes --- 8191 (100) 67.8% 4516 (94) 56.0%
 Not ascertained --- 0 (0) N/A 0 (0) N/A
Cancer type
 Colorectal 2958 (56) 4767 (58) 67.8% 0.15 2754 (57) 57.4% 0.04
 Non-small cell lung 2110 (40) 3027 (37) 67.0% 1858 (39) 53.8%
 Small cell lung 247 (5) 397 (5) 72.5% 213 (4) 53.1%
Stage at diagnosis
 I 1428 (27) 1685 (21) 70.2% 0.002 1377 (29) 60.1% <0.001
 II 1043 (20) 1614 (20) 68.1% 1009 (21) 57.8%
 III 1535 (29) 2872 (35) 68.7% 1453 (30) 53.1%
 IV 1058 (20) 1653 (20) 65.2% 986 (20) 51.8%
 Unknown 251 (5) 367 (5) 59.4% 0 (0) N/A
Age at diagnosis in years
 < 54 1001 (19) 1801 (22) 66.1% 0.002 928 (19) 53.7% 0.16
 54–61 1111 (21) 1854 (23) 67.9% 1041 (22) 53.7%
 62–68 1098 (21) 1745 (21) 71.2% 994 (21) 58.1%
 69–75 1076 (20) 1512 (18) 69.0% 964 (20) 56.4%
 >75 1029 (19) 1279 (16) 63.6% 898 (19) 57.4%
Sex
 Male 2835 (53) 4443 (54) 69.2% 0.008 2592 (54) 54.9% 0.19
 Female 2480 (47) 3748 (46) 66.0% 2233 (46) 56.8%
Race
 White 3704 (70) 5633 (69) 71.1% <0.001 3375 (70) 55.9% <0.001
 African-American 713 (13) 1135 (14) 63.0% 627 (13) 64.8%
 Other 898 (17) 1423 (17) 58.2% 823 (17) 48.5%
Marital status
 Married/partnered 3298 (62) 5179 (63) 69.5% <0.001 3029 (63) 56.5% 0.24
 Unmarried 2014 (38) 3012 (37) 64.7% 1796 (37) 54.7%
 Not ascertained 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Education attained
 Less than high school 887 (17) 1345 (16) 62.2% <0.001 786 (16) 57.1% 0.045
 High school graduate 3101 (58) 4788 (58) 69.1% 2805 (58) 56.8%
 College graduate 1320 (25) 2049 (25) 68.4% 1228 (25) 52.8%
 Missing data 7 (0) 9 (0) 6 (0.1)
Region
 Northeast/Midwest 714 (13) 1090 (13) 68.4% <0.001 572 (12) 59.8% <0.001
 South 1778 (33) 2861 (35) 70.9% 1636 (34) 62.0%
 West 2823 (53) 4240 (52) 65.5% 2617 (54) 51.1%
Income in last year
 < $20,000 1415 (27) 2122 (26) 63.9% <0.001 1266 (26) 53.6% 0.12
 $20,000–$40,000 1409 (27) 2156 (26) 68.1% 1286 (27) 58.3%
 $40,000–$60,000 824 (16) 1302 (16) 70.4% 760 (16) 55.1%
 > $60,000 1211 (23) 1960 (24) 72.9% 1132 (23) 56.2%
 Unknown 456 (9) 651 (8) 381 (8) 54.9%
Integrated health system
 No 3492 (66) 5419 (66) 68.0% 0.55 3197 (66) 55.8% 0.97
 Yes 1823 (34) 2772 (34) 67.2% 1628 (34) 55.8%
Number of self-reported comorbid conditions
 0 2392 (45) 3836 (47) 67.5% 0.17 2193 (45) 57.8% 0.08
 1 1781 (34) 2684 (33) 67.1% 1606 (33) 54.7%
 2 760 (14) 1138 (14) 67.8% 686 (14) 53.8%
 3+ 380 (7) 533 (7) 72.6% 340 (7) 52.7%
 Not ascertained 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Pre-diagnosis health status (quartile)
 1 1304 (25) 2046 (25) 68.0% <0.001 1161 (24) 52.8% <0.001
 2 1341 (25) 2060 (25) 63.0% 1222 (25) 51.3%
 3 1177 (22) 1841 (23) 67.7% 1075 (22) 55.7%
 4 1386 (26) 2100 (26) 72.4% 1274 (26) 63.1%
 Not ascertained 107 (2) 144 (2) 93 (2)
CES-D short form
 <6 4266 (80) 6474 (79) 69.8% <0.001 3881 (80) 58.6% <0.001
 ≥6 813 (15) 1358 (17) 60.3% 738 (15) 43.4%
 Not ascertained 236 (4) 359 (4) 206 (4)
*

P for test of combined significance of the levels of each independent variable for prediction of the outcome, using bivariable logistic regression analysis. For the perceived quality outcome, we used a robust standard error estimate to account for repeated measures among individual patients.

Patients only reported quality of care corresponding to a treatment decision if they received the treatment under consideration for that decision.

Ratings of physician communication were analyzed when the decision role for a treatment corresponded to the most common type of treatment decision for patients with the same stage and cancer type. There were no clinical subgroups for whom the most common decision type was radiation therapy.