Patient-Driven Second Opinions in Oncology: A Systematic Review
- 12 June 2017
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The Oncologist
- Vol. 22 (10), 1197-1211
- https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0429
Abstract
Background: Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice. Materials and Methods: Relevant databases were sought using the terms “cancer,” “second opinion,” and “self-initiated.” Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers. Results: Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative (n = 4), mixed (n = 1), or quantitative (n = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%–88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients’ primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%–51%. Discussion: Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. The Oncologist 2017;22:1197–1211Keywords
Funding Information
- Dutch Cancer Society (UVA 2014-6671)
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Association of treatment and outcomes of doctor-shopping behavior in patients with hepatocellular carcinomaPatient Preference and Adherence, 2013
- The Brustkrebs-Studien.de website for breast cancer patients: User acceptance of a German internet portal offering information on the disease and treatment options, and a clinical trials matching serviceBMC Cancer, 2010
- An exploration of the dynamics and influences upon second medical opinion consultations in cancer careAsia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2010
- Patients’ reflections on communication in the second-opinion hematology–oncology consultationPatient Education and Counseling, 2009
- Ethical and Legal Implications in Seeking and Providing a Second Medical OpinionDigestive Diseases, 2007
- Seeking a second opinion: Do patients need a second opinion when practice guidelines exist?Health Policy, 2007
- Discrepancy between second and first opinion in surgical oncological patientsEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2006
- Cancer patient expectations of and communication with oncologists and oncology nurses: the experience of an integrated oncology and palliative care serviceSupportive Care in Cancer, 2000
- Clinical and Cost Impact of Second-opinion PathologyThe American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 1996
- Patients?? Reactions and Physician-Patient Communication in a Mandatory Surgical Second-Opinion ProgramMedical Care, 1989