A cancer diagnosis can bring with it a wave of uncertainty. For many people, the moment they hear the word cancer is the moment life splits into a “before” and an “after.” What follows is often a series of decisions—complex, deeply personal, and life-altering.
In these moments, shared decision-making becomes more than a best practice. It becomes a source of clarity and connection.
Shared decision-making invites people to take an active role in their care, working together with their care team to weigh the medical facts alongside their personal values, preferences, and goals. It doesn’t mean choosing alone—it means choosing together.
What Shared Decision-Making Can Look Like
One of our members, newly diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, described her experience this way:
“I thought I only had one path. I didn’t know there were options, or that I could ask questions. When someone finally walked me through the choices—and what they’d mean for me—I felt like I could breathe again.”
That kind of relief—the moment when fear gives way to understanding—is what shared decision-making makes possible.
Why It Matters
Research shows that people who participate in shared decision-making are more likely to choose treatments that align with their values and feel more confident in their decisions (Elwyn et al., 2012). It also reduces decision regret, improves adherence to treatment, and can lead to better emotional and physical outcomes (Stacey et al., 2017).
In cancer care, where trade-offs can be especially difficult—between survival and side effects, or longevity and quality of life—shared decision-making helps patients and their families navigate with a clearer sense of purpose (Zafar & Abernethy, 2014).
And yet, shared decision-making remains underutilized. Fewer than half of people with newly diagnosed cancer feel they are fully involved in their treatment choices (Kehl et al., 2015). Barriers like time constraints, communication gaps, and lack of access to personalized information often get in the way.
Shared Decision-Making Is Especially Important in Cancer
Cancer treatment is rarely black and white. There may be several medically reasonable paths—each with its own set of trade-offs. One option may offer a longer survival period, but bring harsher side effects. Another may protect quality of life, but offer a shorter timeframe. Some may want the most aggressive care available. Others may prioritize time at home, feeling well.
Shared decision-making creates space to talk about what matters most—and to shape care around it.
How Ardynn Helps
At Ardynn, we use real-world data and human connection to bring shared decision-making to life. We help people understand what’s likely to happen with each treatment based on outcomes from others with similar diagnoses and life circumstances.
Our advocates guide members through those “what if” questions—what if I choose treatment A? What does recovery look like? Will I be able to keep working? Will I feel like myself?
Because for us, shared decision-making isn’t just about helping people choose a treatment. It’s about helping them choose their path—one that fits their values, their life, and their sense of what matters most. To get started with an advocate, contact Ardynn member services at 737-307-0077 or click here to schedule an introductory call.
References
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., et al. (2012). Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361–1367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., et al. (2017). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
Zafar, S. Y., & Abernethy, A. P. (2014). Financial toxicity, part I: a new name for a growing problem. Oncology, 28(2), 80–81.
Kehl, K. L., Landrum, M. B., Arora, N. K., et al. (2015). Shared decision making in cancer care: The association of actual and preferred decision roles with patient-reported quality. JAMA Oncology, 1(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2014.398
