Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails

Exploring the MAPPING application to facilitate risk communication and shared decision-making between physicians and patients with gynaecological cancer

This is an observational study in which we evaluated current levels of risk communication (RC) among gynaecological oncologists and their view on the Mapping All Patient Probabilities in Numerical Graphs (MAPPING) application as a possible tool to facilitate RC and shared decision-making (SDM). In part A, we audio-recorded 29 conversations between gynaecological oncologists and patients when discussing treatment options. In part B, interviews were performed with eight gynaecological oncologists.RC and SDM were measured using two observer-based measures, that is, the RC content (RCC) tool (scale 0-2) and the OPTION-5 instrument (scale 0-100). We used CollaboRATE questionnaire (scale 0-10) and a self-developed survey to assess patient-reported RC and SDM. In part B, we evaluated physicians' attitudes regarding the use of the MAPPING application to support RC. Patients were minimally involved in the decision-making process (OPTION-5 25.9%±13.4 RCC 0.21±0.18). Patient-reported SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 9.19±1.79) and patients preferred receiving numeric information, whereas most physicians used qualitative risk terms rather than exact numbers. In part B, gynaecologists had a positive attitude towards the MAPPING application. However, they stated that the app was difficult to use improvement of layout and better implementations are needed.

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

Trade-offs between overall survival and side effects in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: eliciting preferences of patients with primary and metastatic breast cancer using a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

There has been a recent proliferation in treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Such treatments often involve trade-offs between overall survival and side effects. Our study aims to estimate the trade-offs that could be used to inform decision-making at the individual and policy level.

DESIGN

We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to look at preferences for avoiding severity levels of side effects when choosing treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Treatment attributes were: fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, other side effects (peripheral neuropathy, hand-foot syndrome and mucositis) and urgent hospital admission and overall survival. Responses were analysed using an error component logit model. We estimated the relative importance of attributes and minimum acceptable survival for improvements in side effects.

SETTING

The DCE was completed online by UK residents with self-reported diagnoses of breast cancer.

PARTICIPANTS

105 respondents participated, of which 72 patients had metastatic breast cancer and 33 patients had primary breast cancer.

RESULTS

Overall survival had the largest relative importance, followed by other side effects, diarrhoea, nausea and fatigue. The risk of urgent hospital admission was not significant. While overall survival was the most important attribute, respondents were willing to forgo some absolute probability of overall survival for reductions in all Grade 2 side effects (12.02% for hand-foot syndrome, 11.01% for mucositis, 10.42% for peripheral neuropathy, 6.33% for diarrhoea and 3.62% for nausea). Grade 1 side effects were not significant, suggesting respondents have a general tolerance for them.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid particular severity levels of side effects. Our results have implications for data collected in research studies and can help inform person-centred care and shared decision-making.

Factors influencing older women's decision-making related to treatment of operable breast cancer: A qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVE

There is variation in practice in the treatment of older women with breast cancer. International guidelines highlight the importance of patient autonomy in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study is to identify factors which influence decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer, which will enable us to further understand how to support these patients.

METHODS

Systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines was performed to identify factors which influence treatment decision-making in older women with operable breast cancer. Medline, Web of Science and SCOPUS were searched.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5840 results; 13 articles met the inclusion criteria and reported on a total of 1118 women. Thematic analysis identified three key themes in which decision-making factors could be categorised. These were healthcare-related factors, patient-related factors and impact of treatment. Healthcare-related factors included communication with clinicians and provision of information. Patient-related factors were age, pre-existing knowledge, preconceptions of breast cancer and treatment, decision-making style and co-morbidities. The impact of treatment considerations included body image and effect on quality of life. Decision-making style was frequently reported; older women did not demonstrate one preferred style.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings have highlighted the complex interplay of factors which influence how older women make breast cancer treatment-decisions. Clinicians should have an awareness of the factors highlighted to maximise their ability to provide support and personalised care to older women with breast cancer whilst treatment decisions are made.

A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholders' Preferences for Early-Stage Rectal Cancer Treatment

As treatment options for patients with rectal cancer evolve, patients with early-stage rectal cancer may have a treatment choice between surgery and a trial of nonoperative management. Patients must consider the treatments' clinical tradeoffs alongside their personal goals and preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and clinicians can improve decision quality when patients are faced with preference-sensitive care options. We interviewed 28 stakeholders (13 clinicians and 15 patients) to understand their perspectives on early-stage rectal cancer treatment decision-making. Clinicians included surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists who treat rectal cancer. Adult patients included those diagnosed with early-stage rectal cancer in the past 5 years, recruited from an institutional database. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on a well-established decision support framework and reviewed by the research team and stakeholders. Interviews were conducted between January 2022 and January 2023. Transcripts were coded by 2 raters and analyzed using thematic analysis. Both clinicians and patients recognized the importance of SDM to support high-quality decisions about the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer. Barriers to SDM included variable clinician motivation due to lack of training or perception of patients' desires or abilities to engage, as well as time-constrained encounters. A decision aid could help facilitate SDM for early-stage rectal cancer by providing standardized, evidence-based information about treatment options that align with clinicians' and patients' decision needs.

Experiences of Using Patient Decision Aids for Decisions About Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Aggregation of Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Inconsistent results have been found regarding the effects of patient decision aids (PtDAs) in supporting patients' decision-making for cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative meta-aggregation presents the experiences of using PtDAs, as perceived by adult patients with cancer, and highlights the components they perceived as important.

METHODS

We used the 3-phase process for meta-aggregation suggested by Joanna Briggs Institute to identify published studies with qualitative evidence from CINAHL, Ovid-MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases. The selected studies involved adults with various cancer diagnoses. The phenomenon of interest and the context for this review were people's experiences of using PtDAs for decisions about first-line cancer treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included. The authors achieved consensus on 5 synthesized findings about PtDAs: (1) improved understanding of treatment options and patient values and preferences; (2) served as platforms for expressing concerns, obtaining support, and having meaningful conversations with healthcare providers; (3) facilitated active personal and family engagement in decision-making; (4) enabled recall of information and evaluation of satisfaction with decisions; and (5) presented potential structural barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used qualitative evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of PtDAs and identify aspects patients with cancer find particularly beneficial.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses play a crucial role in supporting patients and family caregivers throughout the decision-making process for cancer treatment. Patient decision aids that balance complex treatment information with simple language and illustrations or graphs can enhance patients' comprehension. The integration of values clarification exercises into care can further improve patients' decisional outcomes.

Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation-an observational study

PURPOSE

To characterize the feedback of patients with thyroid nodules receiving care using a shared decision making (SDM) tool designed to improve conversations with their clinicians related to diagnostic options (e.g. thyroid biopsy, ultrasound surveillance).

METHODS

Investigators qualitatively analyzed post-encounter interviews with patients to characterize their feedback of a SDM tool used during their clinical visits. Additionally, investigators counted instances of diagnostic choice awareness and of patients' expression of a diagnostic management preference in recordings of clinical encounters of adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules in which the SDM tool was used.

RESULTS

In total, 53 patients (42 (79%) women); median age 62 years were enrolled and had consultations supported by the SDM tool. Patients were favorable about the design of the SDM tool and its ability to convey information about options and support patient-clinician interactions. Patients identified opportunities to improve the tool through adding more content and improve its use in practice through training of clinicians in its use. There was evidence of diagnostic choice awareness in 52 (98%) of these visits and patients expressed a diagnostic management preference in 40 (76%).

CONCLUSION

User centered design including feedback from patients and real life observation supports the use of the SDM tool to facilitate collaboration between patients and clinicians.

Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of decision support intervention on treatment knowledge, decision self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and decision satisfaction in patients with hepatocellular cancer. The study was a randomized controlled trial. In all, 69 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were recruited and randomly assigned to a decision support group or a control group. Data were collected at baseline, post-test, and follow-up using self-report questionnaires. After controlling for baseline scores, the between-group difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) for treatment-related knowledge in post-test scores was 11.9 (6.1, 17.8). After controlling for baseline scores, the between-group difference (95% CI) for decisional conflict was -7.0 (-12.0, -2.0). There was no statistically significant between-group difference in decision self-efficacy and decision satisfaction. Findings supported the efficacy of decision support intervention to improve treatment knowledge and reduce decisional conflict but had no significant effect on decision self-efficacy and decision satisfaction in patients with HCC.

Study on the Effect of Positive Psychological Intervention Based on PERMA Model on Perioperative Patients with AIDS Complicated with Breast Cancer

Objective. To study the effect of positive psychological intervention based on PERMA model on perioperative AIDS patients complicated with breast cancer. Methods. A total of 120 perioperative patients with AIDS complicated with breast cancer treated in our hospital from January 2021 to December 2021 were randomly divided into research group ( $n=60$ ) and control group ( $n=60$ ). The research group received positive psychological intervention based on PERMA model, while the control group received routine nursing. The scores of disease uncertainty scale (MUIS), Frankl treatment compliance scale, cancer-related fatigue scale, self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), and quality of life scale EORTCQLQ-C30 (v3.0) were studied. Results. After 12-week nursing, the MUIS score of the research group was lower than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). After 12 weeks of nursing, the score of Frankl treatment compliance scale in the research group was higher than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). Following 12-week nursing, the scores of SAS and SDS in the research group were lower than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). After 12 weeks of nursing, the score of cancer-related fatigue scale in the research group was lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). The EORTCQLQ-C30 (v3.0) scale-symptom domain score in the research group was lower than that in the control group following 12-week nursing, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). After 12 weeks of nursing, the EORTCQLQ-C30 (v3.0) scale-overall health domain score and functional domain score in the research group were higher than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusion. The application value of positive psychological intervention based on PERMA model in perioperative patients with AIDS complicated with breast cancer is more significant. It contributes more to treatment compliance and improves negative feelings of anxiety and depression.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, January 2022

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of breastfeeding while employed and commentaries on reviews focused on mammography test characteristics and sexual health for gynecologic cancer survivors. It also includes a quick update on a USPSTF review for aspirin as pre-eclampsia prophylaxis.

Decision aids for breast cancer screening in women approximately 50 years of age: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Review the content, quality and effect of breast cancer screening decision aids (BCS-DAs) in women approximately 50 years of age to provide a basis for the development of DAs.

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening (BCS) decisions are complex and should vary depending on a woman's risk of breast cancer and her values and preferences. Decision aids (DAs) can help support women and medical staff in shared decision-making (SDM) when solving BCS problems.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Four databases were searched starting at the time of establishment of the database to March 2021. The PRISMA checklist was followed. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the DAs was assessed using the International Standards for Decision Aid (IPDASi v4.0).

RESULTS

The search strategy obtained 2024 references. After abstraction and full text screening, a total of seven studies were included. This article systematically reviews the content, quality and effectiveness of DAs in seven RCTs in helping women to make BCS decisions. The DAs were mostly in paper or online form and displayed disease screening information, analysed the benefits and harms of options and clarified the value to patients. Among all the DAs, only one met the minimum quality standards of IPDASi v4.0. Comprehensive analysis shows that DAs can significantly improve knowledge and increase the proportion of women who make informed choices, but they have no effect on screening attitude, intention, decision conflict or regret.

CONCLUSIONS

In the future, nurses should be encouraged to develop DAs in accordance with strict standards and to make them applicable to young women of different backgrounds.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The result may be provide a basis for the development of DAs to promote women's informed screening choices.

Evaluate the effectiveness of breast cancer decision aids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomize clinical trails

Aim

To assess the effectiveness of decision aids in the treatment, prevention and screening of breast cancer patients.

Design

A systematic review and meta‐analysis.

Methods

The review protocol was registered in the CRD Prospero database(CRD42020173028).

A literature search was carried out in five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of science data in January 2020. We used The Cochrane risk bias assessment tool to evaluate the literature quality of included trials and the Review Manager 5.2 software to analyse data.

Results

We included 22 studies. Compared with the conventional methods, decision aids reduced treatment decision conflicts and had no significant effect on screening decision conflicts (WMD=−2.25, 95% CI = ‐ 2.64,‐1.87, p < .0001; WMD=−1.37, 95% CI = ‐ 3.57,0.83, p = .22). Three were no statistical differences in participants' anxiety, decision regret, knowledge, informed choice and decision‐making satisfaction between the two groups.