Examining the effectiveness and implementation of patient treatment decision-aid tools for men with localised prostate cancer: A systematic review

Decision fatigue among cancer patients with recurrence: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

Cancer recurrence requires patients to make many decisions regarding treatment and daily life, possibly causing decision fatigue. This study interpreted and understood the experience of decision fatigue among patients with cancer recurrence.

METHOD

This research utilized a qualitative study approach with semi-structured interviews. Online interviews were conducted for 15 patients with recurrent cancer. Data were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Four analytic themes were extracted: decision fatigue related to treatment, decision fatigue in daily life, coping with decision fatigue, and expectations for healthcare providers to reduce decision fatigue.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients with recurrence experience decision fatigue, especially regarding treatment options and choices about exercise and nutrition. Managing this psychosocial burden is needed to empower patients for treatment and recovery. Healthcare providers must provide sufficient information with constant empathy during the care process.

Influential Factors Impacting Treatment Decision-making and Decision Regret in Patients with Localized or Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied.

OBJECTIVE

Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as "a decision driver", "associated", "influential", or "significant" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key.

CONCLUSIONS

The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor's recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

Why Do Men Reject Adjuvant Radiotherapy following Radical Prostatectomy? A Systematic Survey

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate non-adherence rates to adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) after radical prostatectomy (RP) and to obtain patient reported reasons for rejecting aRT despite recommendation by a multidisciplinary team discussion (MTD).

METHODS

In a retrospective monocentric analysis, we identified 1,197 prostate cancer patients who underwent RP between 2014 and 2022 at our institution, of which 735 received a postoperative MTD recommendation. Patients with a recommendation for aRT underwent a structured phone interview with predefined standardised qualitative and quantitative questions and were stratified into "adherent" (aRT performed) and "non-adherent" groups (aRT not performed).

RESULTS

Of 55 patients receiving a recommendation for aRT (7.5% of all RP patients), 24 (44%) were non-adherent. Baseline tumour characteristics were comparable among the groups. "Fear of radiation damage" was the most common reason for rejection, followed by "lack of information," "feeling that the treating physician does not support the recommendation" and "the impression that aRT is not associated with improved oncological outcome." Salvage radiotherapy was performed in 25% of non-adherent patients.

CONCLUSION

High rates of non-adherence to aRT after RP were observed, and reasons for this phenomenon are most likely multifactorial. Multidisciplinary and individualized patient counselling might be a key for increasing adherence rates.

Co-designing an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer: Navigate

Objectives

To develop an online treatment decision aid (OTDA) to assist patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) and their partners in making treatment decisions.

Patients and methods

Navigate, an OTDA for LRPC, was rigorously co-designed by patients with a confirmed diagnosis or at risk of LRPC and their partners, clinicians, researchers and website designers/developers. A theoretical model guided the development process. A mixed methods approach was used incorporating (1) evidence for essential design elements for OTDAs; (2) evidence for treatment options for LRPC; (3) an iterative co-design process involving stakeholder workshops and prototype review; and (4) expert rating using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Three co-design workshops with potential users (n = 12) and research and web-design team members (n = 10) were conducted. Results from each workshop informed OTDA modifications to the OTDA for testing in the subsequent workshop. Clinician (n = 6) and consumer (n = 9) feedback on usability and content on the penultimate version was collected.

Results

The initial workshops identified key content and design features that were incorporated into the draft OTDA, re-workshopped and incorporated into the penultimate OTDA. Expert feedback on usability and content was also incorporated into the final OTDA. The final OTDA was deemed comprehensive, clear and appropriate and met all IPDAS criteria.

Conclusion

Navigate is an interactive and acceptable OTDA for Australian men with LRPC designed by men for men using a co-design methodology. The effectiveness of Navigate in assisting patient decision-making is currently being assessed in a randomised controlled trial with patients with LRPC and their partners.

A Qualitative Study of Men's Experiences Using Navigate: A Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Aid

Background. Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (LPC) often face a dilemma in choosing between available treatment options that have similar survival rates but for which the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each treatment differ. The Navigate decision aid was created to assist Australian men with LPC in making informed decisions about treatment that align with their personal values and preferences. Navigate presents current, unbiased information, including an interactive values clarification exercise. Objective. This study was a qualitative investigation of men's treatment decision making for LPC, and their experiences using the Navigate Web site, to identify areas for improvement and inform implementation. Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 men diagnosed with LPC who completed the intervention arm of the Navigate randomized controlled trial. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed. Results: Five main themes emerged: 1) diagnosis experiences varied, although men were strongly influenced by their clinician to make an early initial treatment decision; 2) men sought resources and support they trusted; 3) men valued Navigate's multiformatted content and design; 4) men suggested more content was needed on a) the diagnosis journey and b) new treatment updates; and 5) men identified design flaws in the values clarification exercise on Navigate but appreciated the tool being available. Conclusions. Specialist authority influenced men to make an early treatment decision. However, Navigate was helpful in supporting men's ongoing treatment decision making, particularly men on active surveillance who may face further treatment decisions if their cancer progresses. To gain trust and improve engagement from Navigate users, credentials and sources of information need to be prominent. Trustworthiness, timing of access, and the clinician's role in empowering men to use available decision aids are crucial elements to be considered when implementing Navigate in clinical settings.

Highlights

The Navigate decision aid Web site was created to help Australian men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (LPC) make an informed decision about their treatment.Navigate was helpful in supporting men's ongoing treatment decision making for LPC.Men's treatment decision making for LPC was greatly influenced by perceived authority and trust in their clinician.Trustworthiness, timing of access, and the clinician's role in empowering men to use available decision aids are crucial.

Patient Perceptions of a Decision Support Tool for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose. To evaluate patient perceptions of a Web-based decision aid for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods. We assessed patient perceptions of a multicomponent, Web-based decision aid with a preference elicitation/values clarification exercise using adaptive conjoint analysis, the generation of a summary report, and provision of information about localized prostate cancer treatment options. Using a think-aloud approach, we conducted 21 cognitive interviews with prostate cancer patients presented with the decision aid prior to seeing their urologist. Thematic content analysis was used to examine patient perceptions of the tool's components and content prior to engaging in shared decision making with their clinician. Results. Five themes were identified: 1) patients had some negative emotional reactions to the tool, pointing out what they perceived to be unnecessarily negative framing and language used; 2) patients were forced to stop and think about preferences while going through the tool and found this deliberation to be useful; 3) patients were confused by the tool; 4) patients tried to discern the intent of the conjoint analysis questions; and 5) there was a disconnect between patients' negative reactions while using the tool and a contrasting general satisfaction with the final "values profile" created by the tool. Conclusions. Studies are needed to explore the disconnect between patients' expressing negative reactions while going through some components of decision aids but satisfaction with the final output. In particular, we hypothesize that this effect might be explained by cognitive biases such as choice-supportive bias, hindsight bias, and the "IKEA effect." This is one of the first projects to elicit patient reactions while they were completing a decision aid, and we recommend further similar, qualitative postprocess evaluation studies.

Highlights

We explored perceptions of a decision aid with education about localized prostate cancer treatment and preference elicitation using adaptive conjoint analysis.Patients found the tool useful but were also confused by it, tried to discern the intent of the questions, and expressed negative emotional reactions.In particular, there was a disconnect between patients' negative reactions while using the tool and general satisfaction with the final values profile generated by the tool, which is an area for future research.