Development and utilization of complementary communication channels for treatment decision making and survivorship issues among cancer patients: The CIS Research Consortium Experience

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.

Nurse-led consultations reinforced with eHealth technology: a qualitative study of the experiences of patients with gynecological cancer

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, the health care profession has moved toward personalized care and has focused on the diversity of survivorship needs after initial cancer treatment. Health care providers encourage empowering patients to participate actively in their own health management and survivorship. Consequently, we developed and piloted a new follow-up model for patients at a Norwegian hospital, referred to as the Lifestyle and Empowerment Techniques in Survivorship of Gynecologic Oncology (LETSGO) model. Using LETSGO, a dedicated nurse replaces the physician in every second follow-up consultation, providing patients who have undergone cancer treatment with self-management techniques that are reinforced with eHealth technology via a specially designed app. Encouraging behavioral change and evaluating the late effects of treatment and recurrence symptoms are central components of self-management techniques. In addition, the app encourages physical activity and positive lifestyle changes, helps identify recurrence-related symptoms, and provides reminders of activity goals. This study aims to investigate experiences with nurse-led consultations supported by eHealth technology among the patients who piloted the LETSGO intervention.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to analyze the participants' experiences with the LETSGO intervention after six to seven months.

RESULTS

The participants in the LETSGO pilot felt safe and well cared for. They thought the nurse was less busy than the doctors appear to be, which made it easy for them to share any cancer-related challenges. Many participants reported increased empowerment and confidence in recognizing symptoms of cancer recurrence, and participants who used the app regularly were motivated to increase their physical activity levels. However, the participants also experienced some limitations and technical errors with the app.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, the participants positively received the nurse-led consultations and eHealth technology, but an intervention study is required for further evaluation. In addition, the reported technical app errors should be resolved and tested prior to eHealth application implementation. Regardless, this study may be useful in planning personalized survivorship care studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03453788 . Registration March 5, 2018.

A systematic review of the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care interventions targeting men with a history of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To examine the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care interventions targeting prostate cancer survivors (PCS).

METHODS

Studies were identified through structured searches of PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases, and bibliographic review. Inclusion criteria were (1) examined feasibility, acceptability, or efficacy of an online intervention designed to improve supportive care outcomes for PCS; (2) presented outcome data collected from PCS separately (if mixed cancer); and (3) evaluated efficacy outcomes using randomized controlled trial (RCT) design.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria; ten were classified as RCTs. Overall, 2446 men (average age 64 years) were included. Studies reported on the following outcomes: feasibility and acceptability of an online intervention (e.g., patient support, online medical record/follow-ups, or decision aids); reducing decisional conflict/distress; improving cancer-related distress and health-related quality of life; and satisfaction with cancer care.

CONCLUSION

We found good preliminary evidence for online supportive care among PCS, but little high level evidence. Generally, the samples were small and unrepresentative. Further, inadequate acceptability measures made it difficult to determine actual PCS acceptability and satisfaction, and lack of control groups precluded strong conclusions regarding efficacy. Translation also appears minimal; few interventions are still publicly available. Larger trials with appropriate control groups and greater emphasis on translation of effective interventions is recommended.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Prostate cancer survivors have a variety of unmet supportive care needs. Using online delivery to improve the reach of high-quality supportive care programs could have a positive impact on health-related quality of life among PCS.

Patients and caregivers' unmet information needs in the field of patient education: results from an Italian multicenter exploratory survey

Patient education and empowerment (PEE) is aimed at improving competence of patients during their clinical path and enabling healthcare providers with specific communication strategies. We investigated the interest of Italian Cancer Research & Care Centers (CRCI) users (patients and caregivers) in being involved in PEE activities. An anonymous questionnaire addressed to users was distributed between June 2013 and February 2014. The questionnaire gathered information on the following: health-related topics; 13 different PEE initiatives/modalities of learning already active at CRCI; personal demographic data; the willingness to be more involved in the organization of health services provided and in which context; and five preferred info-educational activities. Frequency distribution and chi-square analysis were computed. Statistical significance (p value) was set at < 0.05. A total of 875 (29%) users responded to the 3000 distributed questionnaires. The first three priorities of interest were “early diagnosis” (18%), “prevention” (17%), and “diagnosis explanation” (13%). The first three priorities on informational activity were as follows: “classes on cancer-related topics with healthcare professionals” (28%); “cancer information service” (22%); “drug information point” (7%). Forty-nine percent of the respondents stated that they would like to be involved in the organization of PEE activities, particularly caregivers and users older than 55 years of age. The preferred educational activities were “classes on cancer-related topics with healthcare professionals” and “cancer information service” on a face-to-face modality. Patients were more interested than caregivers in “prevention.” The extension of PEE programs to all CRCI users into routine care will be the next step of the present research.

Development of the Cancer Survivor Profile-Breast Cancer (CSPro-BC) app: patient and nurse perspectives on a new navigation tool

PURPOSE

Despite advancements in care, cancer survivors continue to report unmet needs following active cancer treatment. The Cancer Survivor Profile-Breast Cancer (CSPro-BC) application (app) was developed to help address these needs, using breast cancer survivors (BCS) as a pilot group. This paper describes the app development, BCS and nurse perceptions of the app, and changes made based on this feedback.

METHODS

The CSPro-BC app was developed for use on an iPad and includes (1) administration of a 15-20-min survey assessing 18 needs, (2) generation of a profile of needs, relative to a reference group of BCS (median 2 years post-treatment), and (3) provision of problem-specific online resources. Perceptions of the app were evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Feedback was elicited from nurse navigators and BCS. BCS were recruited until the point of saturation.

RESULTS

BCS (N = 11) were middle-aged and a median of 2.4 months post active treatment. Structured questionnaires indicated the following: survey covered meaningful problem areas, profile display was clear, and nurse's involvement was helpful. Follow-up interviews (2 weeks later) revealed that BCS shared their profile with others, but most BCS did not use the resources and those who did thought there were too many. Nurses (N = 3) said the app increased appointment time, but prompted them to discuss areas often not covered in typical BCS follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback by end users directly informed revision of the app.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The CSPro-BC app has been optimized based on BCS feedback.

Comparing the effectiveness of two different decision aids for stable chest discomfort

BACKGROUND

Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to increase decision quality in randomized controlled trials. This study compared the effectiveness of two different decision aids with different modes of delivery.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Patients with angiogram-proven coronary artery disease (CAD) were eligible to participate and randomly assigned to either a booklet/DVD DA or an online DA. Participants completed a survey after viewing the material that assessed patients' knowledge, treatment preferences, use of and satisfaction with the tool, and open-ended reflections on the treatment decision-making process.

RESULTS

Of the 62 patients screened, 34 agreed to participate and were randomly assigned to a group. Of those, 28 (15/17 booklet/DVD and 13/17 online) participants completed the survey. Patients were more likely to report reviewing all of the booklet/DVD DA compared with the online DA (60 vs. 31%, P=0.15). Knowledge scores were significantly higher in the booklet/DVD DA group than the online DA group (67 vs. 47%, P=0.018). Participants in both arms felt it was very or extremely important that doctors give patients materials like these before a catheterization (93% for booklet/DVD DA and 85% for online, P=0.54). Patients' qualitative feedback highlighted significant gaps in knowledge about treatment options, as well as a strong desire to have educational materials in advance of diagnostic catheterizations.

CONCLUSION

The pilot study suggests that both decision aids are highly valued by patients with CAD. The booklet/DVD DA was associated with higher rates of complete review and improved knowledge about the management of stable coronary disease.