Offering a Treatment Choice in the Irradiation of Prostate Cancer Leads to Better Informed and More Active Patients, Without Harm to Well-Being

Shared decision making: Does a decision aid support patients with an atypical cartilaginous tumor in making a decision about treatment

Objective

Due to new insights, atypical cartilaginous tumors (ACTs) of the long bones are no longer considered malignant and treatment is shifting from surgery to active surveillance. We developed a decision aid in order to support in shared decision making on treatment.The aim of this study is to evaluate the treatment preferences of patients with an ACT in the long bones.

Methods

During thirty-four months, patients received a decision aid digitally with information about the disease, the treatment options, and the risks and benefits of active surveillance and surgical treatment. The given answers to patients' preference questions were evaluated qualitatively in relation to the final choice of treatment.

Results

Eighty-four patients were included. None of the patients who preferred active surveillance later underwent surgery. Only four patients underwent surgery based on patient preference.

Conclusion

In our experience the decision aid is useful for shared decision making as it provides the patient with information and the clinician with insight into patient's preferences. The preference for treatment generally corresponds to the eventual treatment.

Innovation

When treatment changes, due to new insights, a decision aid seems helpful for both patients and clinicians to discuss the treatment that best suits the patient's situation.

Patient-clinician communication and patient-centered outcomes among patients with suspected stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective cohort study

Among patients with suspected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we sought to evaluate the association of patient-clinician communication (PCC) with patient-centered outcomes (PCOs). We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study examining PCOs at five time points, up to 12-months post-treatment. We used generalized estimating equation (GEE) models adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables to examine the relationship between PCC (dichotomized as high- or low-quality) and decisional conflict, treatment self-efficacy, and anxiety. The cohort included 165 patients who were 62% male with a mean age of 70.7 ± SD 8.1 years. Adjusted GEE analysis including 810 observations revealed high-quality PCC was associated with no decisional conflict (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.27) and higher self-efficacy (β = -0.26, 95% CI = -0.37 to -0.14). High-quality PCC was not associated with moderately severe anxiety (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.41 to 1.09), though was associated with decreased anxiety scores (β = -3.91, 95% CI = -6.48 to -1.35). Among individuals with suspected early-stage NSCLC, high-quality PCC is associated with less decisional conflict and higher self-efficacy; the relationship with anxiety is unclear. Clinicians should prioritize enhanced treatment-related communication at critical and vulnerable periods in the cancer care trajectory to improve PCOs.

Effectiveness of Decision Aid in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial at Tertiary Referral Hospitals in an Asia Pacific Country

There are several treatment options for localized prostate cancer with very similar outcome but vary in terms of technique and side effect profiles and risks. Considering the potential difficulty in choosing the best treatment, a patient decision aid (PDA) is used to help patients in their decision-making process. However, the use and applicability of PDA in a country in Asia Pacific region like Malaysia is still unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a PDA modified to the local context in improving patients' knowledge, decisional conflict, and preparation for decision making among men with localized prostate cancer. Sixty patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to control and intervention groups. A self-administered questionnaire, which evaluate the knowledge on prostate cancer (23 items), decisional conflict (10 items) and preparation for decision-making (10 items), was given to all participants at pre- and post-intervention. Data were analyzed using independent T test and paired T test. The intervention group showed significant improvement in knowledge (p = 0.02) and decisional conflict (p = 0.01) from baseline. However, when compared between the control and intervention groups, there were no significant differences at baseline and post-intervention on knowledge, decisional conflict and preparation for decision-making. A PDA on treatment options of localized prostate cancer modified to the local context in an Asia Pacific country improved patients' knowledge and decisional conflict but did not have significant impact on the preparation for decision-making. The study was also registered under the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12614000668606 registered on 25/06/2014.

A Patient Decision Aid for Men With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Case Study of Natural Implementation Approaches

BACKGROUND

There are multiple options for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help empower individuals and reduce unwarranted practice variation, but few are used in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

We compared 2 programs implementing PtDAs for men with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

This was a comparative case study. Case 1 was a hospital prostate pathway and case 2 was a provincial prostate pathway with 2 locations (2a, 2b). Nurses provided the men with PtDAs and answered questions. Data sources were as follows: (a) 2 years administrative data for men with localized prostate cancer, (b) clinicians survey and interviews, and (c) patients/spouses interviews. Analysis was within and across cases.

RESULTS

The PtDA was used with 23% of men in case 1 (95% confidence interval, 19.8%-26.1%) and 98% of men in case 2a (95% confidence interval, 96.5%-99.8%). The pathway was not implemented in case 2b. Men given the PtDA had positive experiences. Many clinicians supported the use of PtDAs, some adapted their discussions with patients, and others did not support the use of PtDAs. To increase use in case 1, participants identified needing a Canadian PtDA available electronically and endorsed by all clinicians. In case 2b, the provincial prostate pathway needed to be implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

There was variable uptake of the PtDAs between the cases. Men who received the PtDA had positive outcomes. Several strategies were identified to increase or sustain PtDA use.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nurses have a key role in supporting men making decisions about prostate cancer treatment by providing PtDAs, answering questions, and advocating for men's preferences.

Prostatic irradiation-induced sexual dysfunction: A review and multidisciplinary guide to management in the radical radiotherapy era (Part III on Psychosexual Therapy and the Masculine Self-Esteem)

Psychological morbidity, sexuality, and health/system information have been identified as the highest areas of support needs in patients undergoing management of their prostate cancer (PCa). Management of a patient's sexual function prior to, during and after PCa radiotherapy requires multidisciplinary coordination of care between radiation oncologists, urologists, dermatologists, pharmacists, and psychiatrists. The finale of this three-part review provides a framework for clinicians to better understand the role of mental healthcare providers in the management of sexual toxicities associated with prostatic radiotherapy. The authors recommend that patients be referred for psychological evaluation and possibly to individual, couples or group general or cognitive behavioral sex therapy at the time of their PCa diagnosis, for a more specialized focus on management of sexual toxicities and sexual recovery. The importance and implications of the masculine self-esteem, sexual orientation, gender identification, cultural expectations, relationship status and patient education are reviewed. Well-informed patients tend to have a better quality of life outcomes compared to patients that take on a passive role in their cancer management.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Systematic Review of Decision Aids for the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

A broader range of decisional tools should be investigated. This paper will update the decisional outcome data and assess the features of decisional tool. Literature search strictly followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Articles that cited Lin et al and Violette et al were searched. Features of decisional tools were analyzed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument criteria. The scores of the 31 decisional tools ranged from 6 to 15, which did not correlate proportionally with the positive decisional outcomes. Personal importance appeared to be a significant component. Multidisciplinary clinics are superior in improving decisional outcomes as they promote more at shared decision making.

Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).

Implementation of a patient decision aid for men with localized prostate cancer: evaluation of patient outcomes and practice variation

Background

Men with localized prostate cancer often have unrealistic expectations. Practitioners are poor judges of men’s preferences, contributing to preference misdiagnosis and unwarranted practice variation. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support men with decisions about localized prostate cancer. This is a comparative case study of two strategies for implementing PtDAs in clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer, evaluating (a) PtDA use; (b) impact on men, practitioners, and health system outcomes; and (c) factors influencing sustained use.

Methods/design

Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, this comparative case study will be conducted using administrative data, interviews, and surveys. Cases will be bound by geographic location (one hospital in Ontario; province of Saskatchewan) and time. Eligible participants will be all men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, with outcomes assessed using administrative data and interviews. Nurses, urologists, radiation oncologists, and managers will be surveyed and a smaller sample interviewed. Cases will be established for each setting with findings compared across cases. Changes in the proportions of men given the PtDA over 2 years will be determined from administrative data. Factors associated with receiving the PtDA will be explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. To assess the impact of the PtDA, outcomes will be described using mean and standard deviation (men’s decisional conflict) and frequency and proportions (practitioners consulted, uptake of treatment). To estimate the effect of the PtDA on these outcomes, adjusted mean differences and odds ratios will be calculated using exploratory multivariable general linear regression and binary or multinomial logistic regression. Factors influencing sustained PtDA use will be assessed using descriptive analysis of survey findings and thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

Discussion

Determining how to embed PtDAs effectively within clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer is essential. PtDAs have the potential to strengthen men’s active role in making prostate cancer decisions, enhance uptake of shared decision-making by practitioners, and reduce practice variation. Our team of researchers and knowledge users will use findings to improve current PtDA use and consider scaling-up implementation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0451-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Does Shared Decision Making in Cancer Treatment Improve Quality of Life? A Systematic Literature Review

Background. The growing consensus espousing the use of shared decision making (SDM) in cancer treatment has coincided with the rise of health care evaluation paradigms that emphasize quality of life (QOL) as a central outcome measure. This review systematically examines the association between treatment SDM and QOL outcomes in cancer. Methods. A range of bibliographic databases and gray literature sources was searched. The search retrieved 16,726 records, which were screened by title, abstract, and full text to identify relevant studies. The review included 17 studies with a range of study designs and populations. Data were extracted on study methods, participants, setting, study or intervention description, outcomes, main findings, secondary findings, and limitations. Quality appraisal was used, in conjunction with a narrative approach, to synthesize the evidence. Results. The review found weak, but suggestive, evidence for a positive association between perceived patient involvement in decision making, a central dimension of SDM, and QOL outcomes in cancer. The review did not find evidence for an inverse association between SDM and QOL. The poor methodological quality and heterogeneity of the extant literature constrained the derived conclusions. In addition, the literature commonly treated various subscales of QOL instruments as separate outcomes, increasing the probability of spurious findings. Conclusions. There is weak evidence that aspects of shared decision-making approaches are positively associated with QOL outcomes and very little evidence of a negative association. The extant literature largely assessed patient involvement, only capturing one aspect of the shared decision-making construct, and is of poor quality, necessitating robust studies examining the association.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Older adults newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma and treatment decision making

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe the preferences for participation in decision making of older adult patients newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma and to explore the association between sociodemographic variables and decisional role preferences.

DESIGN

Descriptive, cross-sectional design.

SETTING

Participants' homes and two large academic cancer centers in Seattle, WA, and Chicago, IL.

SAMPLE

A convenience sample of 20 older adults (60 years of age and older) with symptomatic myeloma diagnosed within the past six months.

METHODS

The Control Preferences Scale was administered followed by an in-person, one-time, semistructured interview.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Role preferences for participation in treatment decision making, age, gender, race, work status, personal relationship status, education, and income.

FINDINGS

Fifty-five percent of the participants preferred a shared role with the physician and 40% preferred to make the decisions after seriously considering the opinion of their physicians. Only one participant preferred to leave the decision to the doctor, as long as the doctor considered the patient's treatment preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings indicate that older adults newly diagnosed with myeloma want to participate in treatment decision making. Oncology nurses must respect the patient's desired role preference and oncology clinicians must listen to the patient and allow him or her to be autonomous in making treatment decisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses and other oncology clinicians can elicit a patient's preferred level of participation in treatment decision making. Oncology nurses can make sure patients receive disease- and treatment-related information, encourage them to express their decisional role preference to the physician, develop a culture of mutual respect and value their desire for autonomy for treatment decision making, acknowledge that the right to make a treatment choice belongs to the patient, and provide support during treatment decision making throughout the care continuum.

Effective follow-up consultations: the importance of patient-centered communication and shared decision making

Paediatricians spend a considerable proportion of their time performing follow-up visits for children with chronic conditions, but they rarely receive specific training on how best to perform such consultations. The traditional method of running a follow-up consultation is based on the doctor's agenda, and is problem-oriented. Patients and parents, however, prefer a patient-centered, and solution-focused approach. Although many physicians now recognize the importance of addressing the patient's perspective in a follow-up consultation, a number of barriers hamper its implementation in practice, including time constraints, lack of appropriate training, and a strong tradition of the biomedical, doctor-centered approach. Addressing the patient's perspective successfully can be achieved through shared decision making, clinicians and patients making decisions together based on the best clinical evidence. Research shows that shared decision making not only increases patient, parent, and physician satisfaction with the consultation, but also may improve health outcomes. Shared decision making involves building a physician-patient-parent partnership, agreeing on the problem at hand, laying out the available options with their benefits and risks, eliciting the patient's views and preferences on these options, and agreeing on a course of action. Shared decision making requires specific communication skills, which can be learned, and should be mastered through deliberate practice.

Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids

Background

Effective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user’s health literacy and the PtDA’s characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess:

1. a) the effects of health literacy / numeracy on selected decision-making outcomes, and b) the effects of interventions designed to mitigate the influence of lower health literacy on decision-making outcomes, and

2. the extent to which existing PtDAs a) account for health literacy, and b) are tested in lower health literacy populations.

Methods

We reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.

Results

Aim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.

Conclusion

Lower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients.

Improving the communication of benefits and harms of treatment strategies: decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer treatment decisions

Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer are preference sensitive. The optimal treatment strategy is unknown, and active treatment is not always necessary. Choosing among the various options involves tradeoffs between cancer control and complications that affect quality of life. A shared decision-making process, particularly facilitated by a decision aid, can help a patient make an informed decision that is concordant with his values and preferences. Studies have shown that informed patients are more willing to forego aggressive treatment, but much work is needed to develop and evaluate high-quality decision aids that accurately portray active surveillance. The research agenda for decision aids includes evaluating content elements and format, timing and setting for delivery, the quality of the decision-making process, and the effects of decision support on treatment selection (which will occur repeatedly for men opting for active surveillance) and quality of life.

A preliminary exploration of the feasibility of offering men information about potential prostate cancer treatment options before they know their biopsy results

Background

A small pre-test study was conducted to ascertain potential harm and anxiety associated with distributing information about possible cancer treatment options at the time of biopsy, prior to knowledge about a definitive cancer diagnosis. Priming men about the availability of multiple options before they have a confirmed diagnosis may be an opportunity to engage patients in more informed decision-making.

Methods

Men with an elevated PSA test or suspicious Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) who were referred to a urology clinic for a biopsy were randomized to receive either the clinic’s usual care (UC) biopsy instruction sheet (n = 11) or a pre-biopsy educational (ED) packet containing the biopsy instruction sheet along with a booklet about the biopsy procedure and a prostate cancer treatment decision aid originally written for newly diagnosed men that described in detail possible treatment options (n = 18).

Results

A total of 62% of men who were approached agreed to be randomized, and 83% of the ED group confirmed they used the materials. Anxiety scores were similar for both groups while awaiting the biopsy procedure, with anxiety scores trending lower in the ED group: 41.2 on a prostate-specific anxiety instrument compared to 51.7 in the UC group (p = 0.13). ED participants reported better overall quality of life while awaiting biopsy compared to the UC group (76.4 vs. 48.5, p = 0.01). The small number of men in the ED group who went on to be diagnosed with cancer reported being better informed about the risks and side effects of each option compared to men diagnosed with cancer in the UC group (p = 0.07). In qualitative discussions, men generally reported they found the pre-biopsy materials to be helpful and indicated having information about possible treatment options reduced their anxiety. However, 2 of 18 men reported they did not want to think about treatment options until after they knew their biopsy results.

Conclusions

In this small sample offering pre-biopsy education about potential treatment options was generally well received by patients, appeared to be beneficial to men who went on to be diagnosed, and did not appear to increase anxiety unnecessarily among those who had a negative biopsy.

Shared decision making in cancer screening and treatment decisions for American Indian and Alaska native communities: can we ethically calibrate interventions to patients' values?

Shared decision making has been advocated as a key ethical strategy to improve quality of care and cancer control, especially in relation to screening and treatment decisions at various stages of the cancer continuum. Recent research on cancer in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities has highlighted significant disparities, raising questions about how best to implement prevention and screening programs in often fragmented and underfunded Indian health, tribal and urban systems. Incorporating shared decision making initiatives routinely may provide opportunities to address the complex choices AI/AN patients face.

Patient preferences and healthcare outcomes: an ecological perspective

This article examines the nature of patients' preferences for healthcare and whether clinician accommodation of patient preferences influences health outcomes. First, we provide a conceptualization of patient preferences along with their key attributes. Second, we review research on the relationship between health outcomes and patient preferences for treatments and for the process of care (e.g., preferred involvement in decision-making). Third, following a critique of this literature, we present an ecological model of patient preferences that, while acknowledging that patient preferences may emerge from various contexts (e.g., family or media exposure), we focus on the important role that clinical encounters and patients' health-related experiences play in the elicitation and construction of patient preferences. Fourth, we propose two pathways, one behavioral (adherence) and the other psychological (sense of autonomy or satisfaction with decision), through which meeting patient preferences could lead to better health outcomes. Fifth, we discuss how preferences can be elicited and clarified through patient-centered conversations. We conclude with implications for future research and clinical practice.

Shared decision making in the Netherlands, is the time ripe for nationwide, structural implementation?

WHAT ABOUT POLICY REGARDING SDM? The Dutch health care system has been reformed in 2006 to make it more patient-oriented and demand-driven. We shortly describe four strategies of this health care reform. Although research projects are now fully spread over the country, a coordinated research agenda on SDM is lacking. WHAT ABOUT TOOLS - DECISION SUPPORT FOR PATIENTS? The Dutch governmental healthcare internet portal for patients hosts 16 patient decision aids. WHAT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL INTEREST AND IMPLEMENTATION? There is quite a strong patient participation movement in the Netherlands, on macro and meso level. Limited effort, related to the local research projects has been put into training professionals in SDM skills. WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE? We need concerted action on the level of educating health care professionals, empowering patients, making patient decision aids easily accessible, supporting the professionals in this new task, and measuring the process of SDM in performance indicators used in quality assurance. The Dutch Platform for SDM that will be launched in Maastricht in June 2011 is therefore a timely and relevant initiative.

Developing and user-testing Decision boxes to facilitate shared decision making in primary care--a study protocol

Background

Applying evidence is one of the most challenging steps of evidence-based clinical practice. Healthcare professionals have difficulty interpreting evidence and translating it to patients. Decision boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive health interventions provided to healthcare professionals before they meet the patient. Our hypothesis is that Decision boxes will prepare clinicians to help patients make informed value-based decisions. By acting as primers, the boxes will enhance the application of evidence-based practices and increase shared decision making during the clinical encounter. The objectives of this study are to provide a framework for developing Decision boxes and testing their value to users.

Methods/Design

We will begin by developing Decision box prototypes for 10 clinical conditions or topics based on a review of the research on risk communication. We will present two prototypes to purposeful samples of 16 family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and 32 patients distributed in four focus groups. We will use the User Experience Model framework to explore users' perceptions of the content and format of each prototype. All discussions will be transcribed, and two researchers will independently perform a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic qualitative analysis of the data. The coding scheme will be developed a priori from the User Experience Model's seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible and findable), and will include new themes suggested by the data (inductive analysis). Key findings will be triangulated using additional publications on the design of tools to improve risk communication. All 10 Decision boxes will be modified in light of our findings.

Discussion

This study will produce a robust framework for developing and testing Decision boxes that will serve healthcare professionals and patients alike. It is the first step in the development and implementation of a new tool that should facilitate decision making in clinical practice.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Late gastrointestinal toxicity after dose-escalated conformal radiotherapy for early prostate cancer: results from the UK Medical Research Council RT01 trial (ISRCTN47772397)

Purpose

In men with localized prostate cancer, dose-escalated conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) improves efficacy outcomes at the cost of increased toxicity. We present a detailed analysis to provide further information about the incidence and prevalence of late gastrointestinal side effects.

Methods and Materials

The UK Medical Research Council RT01 trial included 843 men with localized prostate cancer, who were treated for 6 months with neoadjuvant radiotherapy and were randomly assigned to either 64-Gy or 74-Gy CFRT. Toxicity was evaluated before CFRT and during long-term follow-up using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading, the Late Effects on Normal Tissue: Subjective, Objective, Management (LENT/SOM) scale, and Royal Marsden Hospital assessment scores. Patients regularly completed Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--Prostate (FACT-P) and University of California, Los Angeles, Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI) questionnaires.

Results

In the dose-escalated group, the hazard ratio (HR) for rectal bleeding (LENT/SOM grade ≥2) was 1.55 (95% CI, 1.17–2.04); for diarrhea (LENT/SOM grade ≥2), the HR was 1.79 (95% CI, 1.10–2.94); and for proctitis (RTOG grade ≥2), the HR was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.20–2.25). Compared to baseline scores, the prevalence of moderate and severe toxicities generally increased up to 3 years and than lessened. At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of patient-reported severe bowel problems was 6% vs. 8% (standard vs. escalated, respectively) and severe distress was 4% vs. 5%, respectively.

Conclusions

There is a statistically significant increased risk of various adverse gastrointestinal events with dose-escalated CFRT. This remains at clinically acceptable levels, and overall prevalence ultimately decreases with duration of follow-up.

Development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for adults with lower literacy

OBJECTIVE

Several countries have recently implemented national bowel cancer screening programs. To ensure equal access to screening, information is needed to suit adults ranging in literacy level. Decision aids are effective in providing balanced information and have been applied in screening. However, few have been designed for populations with lower education and literacy. This article describes the development and preliminary evaluation of a bowel cancer screening decision aid for this group.

METHOD

We conducted face-to-face interviews with adults of varying literacy ability, to develop the decision aid (Stage 1). We applied principles of plain language, created visual illustrations to support key textual messages, and used colour coding to direct the reader through the booklet. We then explored its acceptability and comprehension among consumers with higher and lower education (Stage 2). Participants were recruited from a community sample with lower education and a university alumni network.

RESULTS

A total of 75 participants were interviewed, 43 with lower educational attainment and 32 with university education. The decision aid was positively reviewed by both education groups. Results highlighted the need to clarify the purpose of the decision aid and the availability of choice in the context of screening, especially to those with lower education.

CONCLUSION

The 2 stage iterative development process identified important factors to consider in the development of decision tools for this target group, and is recommended.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Our findings have implications for how to support people with lower education and literacy make informed screening decisions.

A tool to balance benefit and harm when deciding about adjuvant therapy

Adjuvant therapy aims to prevent outgrowth of residual disease but can induce serious side effects. Weighing conflicting treatment effects and communicating this information with patients is not elementary. This study presents a scheme balancing benefit and harm of adjuvant therapy vs no adjuvant therapy. It is illustrated by the available evidence on adjuvant pelvic external beam radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate-risk stage I endometrial carcinoma patients. The scheme comprises five outcome possibilities of adjuvant therapy: patients who benefit from adjuvant therapy (some at the cost of complications) vs those who neither benefit nor contract complications, those who do not benefit but contract severe complications, or those who die. Using absolute risk differences, a fictive cohort of 1000 patients receiving adjuvant RT is categorised. Three large randomised clinical trials were included. Recurrences will be prevented by adjuvant RT in 60 patients, a majority of 908 patients will neither benefit nor suffer severe radiation-induced harm but 28 patients will suffer severe complications due to adjuvant RT and an expected four patients will die. This scheme readily summarises the different possible treatment outcomes and can be of practical value for clinicians and patients in decision making about adjuvant therapies.

L-type amino-acid transporter 1 as a novel biomarker for high-grade malignancy in prostate cancer

To find reliable biomarkers for high-grade malignancy, the relationship between immunohistochemical L-type amino-acid transporter 1 (LAT1) expression of biopsy samples, determined with the newly developed monoclonal antibody against human LAT1, and prognosis of patients with prostate cancer, was investigated. The intensity and score of immunohistochemical LAT1 expression of first biopsy samples were assessed using the modified Sinicrope et al. method and were found to be correlated with poor survival for the study group of 114 surgically treated patients as a whole (P = 0.0002 and 0.0270, respectively). LAT1 intensity further had a significant relationship (P = 0.0057) with prognosis in pathological T3 + T4 groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that the LAT1 intensity and score were more reliable prognostic markers, compared with the Gleason score and the Ki-67 labeling index. A relationship of the LAT1 intensity and score with prognosis could also be confirmed in 63 patients with inoperable cancer (P = 0.0070 and <0.0001, respectively). Similarly, significant differences in prognosis were confirmed in clinical T3 + T4 groups (P = 0.0091 and 0.0244, respectively). Moreover, the combination of LAT1 expression and Gleason score was found to have a more reliable correlation with prognosis. Thus, elevated LAT1 expression in prostate cancers is a novel independent biomarker of high-grade malignancy, which can be utilized together with the Gleason score, which is mainly dependent on cellular and structural atypia, to assess prognosis.