An observational study in Head and Neck Cancer and Head and Neck Carcinoma, sponsored by Institut Claudius Regaud. Completed at 1 site in France. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-03-03.
Sponsored by Institut Claudius Regaud · Observational
There are no studies on practitioner-related factors influencing decision-making in the field of carcinology of aerodigestive carcinomas. The objective of the study is to determine what are the anthropo-sociological factors in the surgeon, the oncologists and radiotherapists influencing decision making in ear, nose, and throat carcinology. Special attention will be paid to the practitioner's gender, age, geographical origin, place and institution of training, place of practice, volume of patients treated, access to or without reconstruction by microsurgery, his tendency or aversion to risk taking.
Main objectives : To determine the individual professional and non-professional characteristics influencing physicians' decision-making in oncology of aerodigestive carcinomas between choices:
Actually, there are no studies on practitioner-related factors influencing decision-making in the field of carcinology of aerodigestive carcinomas.
The objective of the study is to determine what are the anthropo-sociological factors in the surgeon, the oncologists and radiotherapists influencing decision making in ear, nose, and throat carcinology.
Special attention will be paid to the practitioner's gender, age, geographical origin, place and institution of training, place of practice, volume of patients treated, access to or without reconstruction by microsurgery, his tendency or aversion to risk taking.
This questionnaire will include the items age, sex, place and date of obtaining a medical degree, whether or not obtaining the specialization in cancer, profession of surgeon / oncologist / radiotherapist, place of practice with type of institution (University hospital, Private clinic, etc.) volume of patients treated per year, access or not to reconstructions by microsurgery. The answers to the questionnaire will be anonymous.
Practitioners' attitudes towards risk and uncertainty will be evaluated by 4 validated tools in behavioral science:
A standard case will be part of these vignettes allowing a validation on the respect of the guidelines. The other 6 clinical cases will be cleavants and 36 vignettes will be created by crossing the 6 previous clinical cases with 6 different patient profiles on their social and demographic characteristics (age, comorbidity, sex, isolation)
The experimental plan will take the form of a Latin Square to propose (in addition to the standard case), 6 vignettes to each practitioner by ensuring that all the factors will be presented in a balanced and random way.
In a first phase, the online questionnaire including the vignettes will be evaluated within the sponsor center and by two ear, nose, and throat surgeons from two other centers who have agreed to participate in the project in order to verify its feasibility before global sending.
2,344 studies on the registry are indexed under Head and Neck Neoplasms; 552 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 206 is above the median of 100 across 441 observational studies indexed under Head and Neck Neoplasms.
Browse Head and Neck Neoplasms studies →Institut Claudius Regaud is the lead sponsor of 117 studies on the registry; 34 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Aerodigestive carcinomas surgeons, oncologists specializing in oncology of aerodigestive carcinomas, radiation therapists specialized in oncology of VADS exercising in France. Email addresses accessible via GETTEC / GORTEC / GERCOR / SFORL / UNICANCER.
Exclusion Criteria:
The objective of the study is to determine what are the anthropo-sociological factors in the surgeon, the oncologists and radiotherapists influencing decision making in ENT carcinology.
Evaluation of the anthropological, socio-cultural and psychological factors of the practitioners which condition the decision making for the patients with aero-digestive carcinomas.
An analysis using a classification method will define a typology of therapeutic choices given their aggression and potential risk. These typologies of prescriptions will then be confronted with the characteristics of physicians in terms of propensity for risk taking and their socio-demographic characteristics using a chi2 test (univariate) and a logistic regression (or polynomial if a binary typology cannot be released (multivariate). Variability of choice and influence of physician characteristics on these choices will also be analyzed based on patient characteristics Expected results : * Impact of socio-professional characteristics on the decision-making in oncology of aerodigestive carcinomas. * Impact of psychological factors ie tendency to take risk
Time frame: 2018, September to December
Determination of clinical recommendations choices of the health practitioners for different clinical cases of aerodigestive carcinomas
7 clinical cases will serve as a basis for the creation of clinical vignettes: A standard case (T2N1M0 pelvi-lingual carcinoma, good general condition patient) will be part of these vignettes allowing a validation on the respect of the guidelines.The other 6 clinical cases will be cleavants. The experimental plan will take the form of a Latin Square to propose (in addition to the standard case), 6 vignettes to each practitioner by ensuring that all the factors will be presented in a balanced and random way. Practitioners will be asked to give their clinical recommendations for each clinical case presented.
Time frame: 2018, September to December
Self assessment of willingness to take risk (by health practitioners themselves)
All the health practitioners will be asked to self-evaluate their propensity to take risk using a 11-point Likert scale ranging from "not at all willing to take risks" to "fully prepared to take risks" in 4 different domains including their daily life, their personal finances, their patient's health and their own health. The Likert scale used in this test is a 0-10 scale where 0 means "not at all willing to take risks" and 10 means "fully prepared to take risks"
Time frame: 2018, September to December
Evaluation of health practitioners' risk attitude
Individual attitudes toward risk will be obtained through certainty equivalent elicitation of a lottery. Using a scrollbar, respondents will be asked to provide the amount of money that makes them indifferent between gaining it for sure or playing the lottery giving them 500 euros with half a chance and nothing otherwise. The expected gain of this lottery is 250 euros, so when the elicited certainty equivalent is inferior (equal/superior) to 250 euros, the respondent is considered as risk averse (neutral/seeking).
Time frame: 2018, September to December
Evaluation of health practitioners' uncertainty attitude
Individual attitudes towards uncertainty will be obtained through certainty equivalent elicitation of a lottery where the probability of gain is unknown. Using the same scrollbar, respondents will be asked to provide the amount of money that makes them indifferent between gaining it for sure or playing the lottery giving them 500 euros with an unknown probability and nothing with an unknown probability.
Time frame: 2018, September to December
Evaluation of health practitioners' rationality attitude
Individual rationality attitudes will be obtained through an Allais test. The expected utility theory is an axiomatic model of decision under uncertainty and is often considered as a normative model of rationality. Allais and Kahneman and Tversky proposed a set of two binary choices that allow to test the independence axiom of the expected utility theory under risk and therefore the adequacy of an individual to the model. The Allais task will be assessed with this 2 questions: Choice 1: Which option do you prefer? * Option A gives you 100% of chance to win 2000$ * Option B gives you 80% of chance to win 3000$ and 20% of chance to win 0$ Choice 2: Which option do you prefer? * Option C which gives you 25% of chance to win 2000$ and 75% of chance to win 0$ * Option D which gives you 20% of chance to win 3000$ and 80% of chance to win 0$ Choice pattern AD indicates a violation of rationality. Same line of reasoning applies for the choice pattern BC.
Time frame: 2018, September to December
Plan to share: Undecided
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Institut Claudius Regaud