Effect of patient decision aids on decisional conflict and regret associated with breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Women's experiences of health care providers when choosing flat closure after breast cancer: An interview study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore women's experiences with healthcare providers previous to a flat closure after breast cancer.

METHODS

Data was collected using individual semi-structured interviews by telephone or teleconferencing systems with 18 women who shared their experience with health care before and during flat closure operation after breast cancer or a breast gene mutation. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis generated three specific themes: (1) Striving to be recognized as a person, (2) Barriers to shared decision making and (3) A need to be empowered, indicating that women's views are not always illuminated and enquired about by health care providers. The care agenda was also more often regulated by norms and standard care than the individual women's intended goals. Furthermore, when the agenda for surgery had been previously set, the women were not presented with viable options to choose from for the upcoming surgery. For these women to influence the reality they face, they have to seek support outside of healthcare. This indicates the important role of patient networks and relatives in empowering the individual women to stand up for their choice and body.

CONCLUSION

In order to offer feasible surgery for women diagnosed with breast cancer or a breast mutation gene, the women's wishes regarding flat closure and what matters to her in her life must be identified. Also emphasized is the need for a more systematic approach in involving the affected women in shared decision-making.

Exploration of decision aids to support advance care planning: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is a process through which people communicate their goals and preferences for future medical care. Due to the complexity of the decision-making process, decision aids can assist individuals in balancing potential benefits and risks of treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

While decision aids have the potential to better promote advance care planning, their characteristics, content and application effectiveness are unclear and lack systematic review. Therefore, we aimed to explore these three aspects and establish a foundation for future research.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

This scoping review adheres to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR list. Six English-language databases were systematically searched from the time of construction until 1 December 2023. Two researchers conducted the article screening and data extraction, and the extracted data was presented in written tables and narrative summaries.

RESULTS

Of the 1479 titles and abstracts, 20 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Types of decision aids were employed, mainly websites and videos. Decision aid's primary components center around 11 areas, such as furnishing information, exploring treatment and care preferences. The main manifestations were a significant increase in knowledge and improved recognition of patients' target value preferences. Among the aids, websites and videos for advance care planning have relatively high content acceptability and decision-making process satisfaction, but their feasibility has yet to be tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids were varied, with content focused on describing key information and exploring treatment and care preferences. Regarding application effects, the aids successfully facilitated the advance care planning process and improved the quality of participants' decisions. Overall, decision aids are efficient in improving the decision-making process for implementing advance care planning in cancer and geriatric populations. In the future, personalised decision aids should be developed based on continuous optimization of tools' quality and promoted for clinical application.

REPORTING METHOD

The paper has adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines and referenced the PRISMAg-ScR checklist.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This is a review without patient and public contribution.

REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF, Open Science DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Long-Term Regret and Satisfaction With Decision Following Gender-Affirming Mastectomy

Importance

There has been increasing legislative interest in regulating gender-affirming surgery, in part due to the concern about decisional regret. The regret rate following gender-affirming surgery is thought to be approximately 1%; however, previous studies relied heavily on ad hoc instruments.

Objective

To evaluate long-term decisional regret and satisfaction with decision using validated instruments following gender-affirming mastectomy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cross-sectional study, a survey of patient-reported outcomes was sent between February 1 and July 31, 2022, to patients who had undergone gender-affirming mastectomy at a US tertiary referral center between January 1, 1990, and February 29, 2020.

Exposure

Decisional regret and satisfaction with decision to undergo gender-affirming mastectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Long-term patient-reported outcomes, including the Holmes-Rovner Satisfaction With Decision scale, the Decision Regret Scale, and demographic characteristics, were collected. Additional information was collected via medical record review. Descriptive statistics and univariable analysis using Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed to compare responders and nonresponders.

Results

A total of 235 patients were deemed eligible for the study, and 139 responded (59.1% response rate). Median age at the time of surgery was 27.1 (IQR, 23.0-33.4) years for responders and 26.4 (IQR, 23.1-32.7) years for nonresponders. Nonresponders (n = 96) had a longer postoperative follow-up period than responders (median follow-up, 4.6 [IQR, 3.1-8.6] vs 3.6 [IQR, 2.7-5.3] years, respectively; P = .002). Nonresponders vs responders also had lower rates of depression (42 [44%] vs 94 [68%]; P < .001) and anxiety (42 [44%] vs 97 [70%]; P < .001). No responders or nonresponders requested or underwent a reversal procedure. The median Satisfaction With Decision Scale score was 5.0 (IQR, 5.0-5.0) on a 5-point scale, with higher scores noting higher satisfaction. The median Decision Regret Scale score was 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0) on a 100-point scale, with lower scores noting lower levels of regret. A univariable regression analysis could not be performed to identify characteristics associated with low satisfaction with decision or high decisional regret due to the lack of variation in these responses.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional survey study, the results of validated survey instruments indicated low rates of decisional regret and high levels of satisfaction with decision following gender-affirming mastectomy. The lack of dissatisfaction and regret impeded the ability to perform a more complex statistical analysis, highlighting the need for condition-specific instruments to assess decisional regret and satisfaction with decision following gender-affirming surgery.

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.