Decision Support with the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

Effectiveness of computerised decision aids for patients with chronic diseases in shared decision-making: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To synthesise the composition and effectiveness of computer-based patient decision aid (PDAs) in interventions for patients with chronic diseases.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Five databases were searched, and only randomised controlled trials (RCTs)were included. This review was conducted with the PRISMA guidelines. The JBI Appraisal Tools for randomised trials were used to assess the risk of bias. We used the random-effects model to conduct meta-analyses. Evidence from RCTs was synthesised using standardised mean differences or mean differences. The GRADE system was employed to assess the certainty of evidence and recommendations. This study was registered on PROSPERO (number: CRD42022369340).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published before October 2022.

RESULTS

The review included 22 studies, and most computer-based PDAs reported information on the disease, treatment options, pros and cons and risk comparison and value clarification. The use of computer-based PDAs showed a significant effect on decision conflict and knowledge, but not on decision regret, satisfaction, self-efficacy, anxiety and quality of life. The overall GRADE certainty of evidence was low.

CONCLUSION

Although the quality of evidence was low, however, using computer-based PDAs could reduce decision conflict and enhance knowledge when making medical decisions. More research is needed to support the contention above.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Computer-based PDAs could assist health-care providers and patients in the shared decision-making process and improving the quality of decision-making.

REPORTING METHOD

This study adhered to PRISMA guidelines. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION.

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.

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.

The effects of cancer clinical decision support systems on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The implementation of high-quality decision-making support are integral to ensuring the delivery of quality cancer care and subsequently achieving positive patient outcomes. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are increasingly used, however it is not known what the effects are beyond supporting the decision-making process. We aimed to identify and synthesize the available literature regarding the effects of DSS on patient-reported outcomes both during and after cancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using dual processes to identify empirical literature that reported an evaluation of DSS interventions and patient-reported outcomes. We appraised study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies, categorized as symptom assessment interventions or interactive educational interventions. Findings were mixed regarding the effectiveness of DSS interventions in improving total symptom distress and severity, whereas the majority were effective in reducing mean scores for worst and usual pain. Interventions were not effective in improving other health-related patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, global distress, depression, or self-efficacy and there were mixed effects for reducing decisional conflict. There was moderate to high patient adherence to the interventions and generally high satisfaction and acceptability, yet minimal evidence for the effect of DSS interventions in clinician adherence to intervention recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Including patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of DSS is critical to understand their impact. Inconsistencies in reporting of interventions may, however, be a contributing factor to heterogeneous effects of clinical DSS regarding a broad range of patient-reported outcomes.

Patient decision support interventions for candidates considering elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in elective surgeries and varied postoperative patient outcomes has boosted the use of patient decision support interventions (PDSIs). However, evidence on the effectiveness of PDSIs are not updated. This systematic review aims to summarize the effects of PDSIs for surgical candidates considering elective surgeries and to identify their moderators with an emphasis on the type of targeted surgery.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating PDSIs among elective surgical candidates. We documented the effects on invasive treatment choice, decision-making-related outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and healthcare resource use. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 2 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were adopted to rate the risk of bias of individual trials and certainty of evidence, respectively. STATA 16 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight trials comprising 14 981 adults from 11 countries were included. Overall, PDSIs had no effect on invasive treatment choice (risk ratio=0.97; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.04), consultation time (mean difference=0.04 min; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.24), or patient-reported outcomes, but had a beneficial effect on decisional conflict (Hedges' g =-0.29; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.16), disease and treatment knowledge (Hedges' g =0.32; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.49), decision-making preparedness (Hedges' g =0.22; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.34), and decision quality (risk ratio=1.98; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.39). Treatment choice varied with surgery type and self-guided PDSIs had a greater effect on disease and treatment knowledge enhancement than clinician-delivered PDSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated that PDSIs targeting individuals considering elective surgeries had benefited their decision-making by reducing decisional conflict and increasing disease and treatment knowledge, decision-making preparedness, and decision quality. These findings may be used to guide the development and evaluation of new PDSIs for elective surgical care.

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

OBJECTIVE

Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) often face a difficult process deciding on a treatment choice that suits their personal preferences. This systematic review examines the impact of patient treatment decision-aids (DAs) on decisional outcomes and treatment choice for men diagnosed with LPC. Our secondary aim was to examine how DAs have been implemented into routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted up to June 2022 using the following databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles were included if they evaluated the effectiveness of treatment DAs for LPC patients on various decisional outcomes and treatment choice. The Mixed-Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality and risk of bias. Data on implementation outcomes were also extracted if reported.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included for the analysis (seven non-randomised studies, 16 randomised control trials, and one qualitative study). Results showed DAs have the potential to improve patient knowledge but revealed no effects on decisional regret or preparedness in decision-making. Due to the variability in methodology among studies, results varied widely for treatment choice, decision-making involvement, decisional conflict, and treatment decision satisfaction. At least one implementation outcome was reported in 11 of the included studies, with the most commonly assessed outcomes being acceptability and appropriateness.

CONCLUSIONS

While DAs appear to improve knowledge, further qualitative evaluations and standardised assessments are needed to better understand men's experiences using DAs and to determine advantages and optimal ways to implement DAs into the treatment decision-making pathway.

Digital Health Interventions for Adult Patients With Cancer Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Digital care has become an essential component of health care. Interventions for patients with cancer need to be effective and safe, and digital health interventions must adhere to the same requirements.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify currently available digital health interventions developed and evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) targeting adult patients with cancer.

METHODS

A scoping review using the JBI methodology was conducted. The participants were adult patients with cancer, and the concept was digital health interventions. The context was open, and sources were limited to RCT effectiveness studies. The PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, Research Information Sharing Service, and KoreaMed databases were searched. Data were extracted and analyzed to achieve summarized results about the participants, types, functions, and outcomes of digital health interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 231 studies were reviewed. Digital health interventions were used mostly at home (187/231, 81%), and the web-based intervention was the most frequently used intervention modality (116/231, 50.2%). Interventions consisting of multiple functional components were most frequently identified (69/231, 29.9%), followed by those with the self-manage function (67/231, 29%). Web-based interventions targeting symptoms with the self-manage and multiple functions and web-based interventions to treat cognitive function and fear of cancer recurrence consistently achieved positive outcomes. More studies supported the positive effects of web-based interventions to inform decision-making and knowledge. The effectiveness of digital health interventions targeting anxiety, depression, distress, fatigue, health-related quality of life or quality of life, pain, physical activity, and sleep was subject to their type and function. A relatively small number of digital health interventions specifically targeted older adults (6/231, 2.6%) or patients with advanced or metastatic cancer (22/231, 9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review summarized digital health interventions developed and evaluated in RCTs involving adult patients with cancer. Systematic reviews of the identified digital interventions are strongly recommended to integrate digital health interventions into clinical practice. The identified gaps in digital health interventions for cancer care need to be reflected in future digital health research.

Exploration of shared decision making in oncology within the United States: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) among the oncology population is highly important due to complex screening and treatment decisions. SDM among patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians has gained more attention and importance, yet few articles have systematically examined SDM, specifically in the adult oncology population. This review aims to explore SDM within the oncology literature and help identify major gaps and concerns, with the goal to provide guidance in the development of clear SDM definitions and interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley approach along with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. A systematic search was conducted in four databases that included publications since 2016.

RESULTS

Of the 364 initial articles, eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. We included articles that were original research, cancer related, and focused on shared decision making. Most studies were limited in defining SDM and operationalizing a model of SDM. There were several concerns revealed related to SDM: (1) racial inequality, (2) quality and preference of the patient, caregiver, and clinician communication is important, and (3) the use of a decision-making aid or tool provides value to the patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistencies regarding the meaning and operationalization of SDM and inequality of the SDM process among patients from different racial/ethnic backgrounds impact the health and quality of care patients receive. Future studies should clearly and consistently define the meaning of SDM and develop decision aids that incorporate bidirectional, interactive communication between patients, caregivers, and clinicians that account for the diversity of racial, ethnic, and sociocultural backgrounds and preferences.

An Evaluation of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Treatment Planning of Small Kidney Tumors: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Surgery is the most common treatment for localized small kidney masses (SKMs) up to 4 cm, despite a lack of evidence for improved overall survival. Nonsurgical management options are gaining recognition, as evidence supports the indolence of most SKMs. Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to improve patient comprehension of the trade-offs of treatment options and overall decision quality, and may improve consideration of all major options according to individual health priorities and preferences.

Objective

This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) primarily aims to evaluate the impact of a new web-based DA on treatment decisions for patients with SKM; that is, selection of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment options. Secondary objectives include an assessment of decision-making outcomes: decisional conflict, decision satisfaction, and an understanding of individual preferences for treatment that incorporate the trade-offs associated with surgical versus nonsurgical interventions.

Methods

Three phases comprise the construction and evaluation of a new web-based DA on SKM treatment. In phase 1, this DA was developed in print format through a multidisciplinary design committee incorporating patient focus groups. Phase 2 was an observational study on patient knowledge and decision-making measures after randomization to receive the printed DA or institutional educational materials, which identified further educational needs applied to a web-based DA. Phase 3 will preliminarily evaluate the web-based DA: in a pilot RCT, 50 adults diagnosed with SKMs will receive the web-based DA or an existing web-based institutional website at urology clinics at a large academic medical center. The web-based DA applies risk communication and information about diagnosis and treatment options, elicits preferences regarding treatment options, and provides a set of options to consider with their doctor based on a decision-analytic model of benefits/harm analysis that accounts for comorbidity, age group, and tumor features. Questionnaires and treatment decision data will be gathered before and after viewing the educational material.

Results

This phase will consist of a pilot RCT from August 2022 to January 2023 to establish feasibility and preliminarily evaluate decision outcomes. Previous study phases from 2018 to 2020 supported the feasibility of providing the printed DA in urology clinics before clinical consultation and demonstrated increased patient knowledge about the diagnosis and treatment options and greater likelihood of favoring nonsurgical treatment just before consultation. This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Recruitment will begin in August 2022.

Conclusions

A web-based DA has been designed to address educational needs for patients making treatment decisions for SKM, accounting for comorbidities and treatment-related benefits and risks. Outcomes from the pilot trial will evaluate the potential of a web-based DA in personalizing treatment decisions and in helping patients weigh attributes of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment options for their SKMs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05387863; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05387863

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/41451

Concordance between influential adverse treatment outcomes and localized prostate cancer treatment decisions

Background

Although treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer (LPC) are preference-sensitive, the extent to which individuals with LPC receive preference-concordant treatment is unclear. In a sample of individuals with LPC, the purpose of this study was to (a) assess concordance between the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and treatment choice; (b) determine whether receipt of a decision aid predicts higher odds of concordance; and (c) identify predictors of concordance from a set of participant characteristics and influential personal factors.

Methods

Participants reported the influence of potential adverse treatment outcomes and personal factors on treatment decisions at baseline. Preference-concordant treatment was defined as (a) any treatment if risk of adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence, (b) active surveillance if risk of adverse outcomes had a lot of influence, or (c) radical prostatectomy or active surveillance if risk of adverse bowel outcomes had a lot of influence and risk of other adverse outcomes did not have a lot of influence. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

Results

Of 224 participants, 137 (61%) pursued treatment concordant with preferences related to adverse treatment outcomes. Receipt of a decision aid did not predict higher odds of concordance. Low tumor risk and age ≥ 60 years predicted higher odds of concordance, while attributing a lot of influence to the impact of treatment on recreation predicted lower odds of concordance.

Conclusions

Risk of potential adverse treatment outcomes may not be the foremost consideration of some patients with LPC. Assessment of the relative importance of patients’ stated values and preferences is warranted in the setting of LPC treatment decision making.

Clinical trial registration: NCT01844999 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01972-w.

Assessing the Impact of Decision Aid Use on Post Prostatectomy Patient Reported Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether completing a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile - Prostate (P3P), prior to prostatectomy, affects self-reported bother from post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included data from men with newly diagnosed clinically localized, very low to intermediate risk prostate cancer who elected for prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative between 2018-2021. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between P3P use and bother from post prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26).

RESULTS

Among the 3987 patients included, 7% used P3P (n = 266). Men who used P3P reported significantly less bother from erectile dysfunction at 6 months vs non-users (aOR 0.42 [95% CI 0.27-0.66]). At 12 months, the effect of P3P on bother from erectile dysfunction was not statistically significant (aOR 0.62 [95% CI 0.37-1.03]). Men who used P3P did not have a statistically significant difference in bother from urinary incontinence (3-month: aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.30-1.06]; 6-month; aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.31-1.97]).

CONCLUSION

Within the stated limitations of this study, we find that use of a decision aid for localized prostate cancer was associated with decreased odds of men being bothered from sexual dysfunction but not urinary incontinence at 6 months post prostatectomy.

Factors Associated with Decision Aid Use in Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose

Decision aids have been found to improve patients' knowledge of treatments and decrease decisional regrets. Despite these benefits, there is not widespread use of decision aids for newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). This analysis investigates factors that impact men's choice to use a decision aid for newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of a PCa registry from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). We included data from men with newly diagnosed, clinically localized PCa seen from 2018-21 at practices offering a PCa decision aid (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate; P3P). The primary outcome was men's registration to use P3P. We fit a multilevel logistic regression model with patient-level factors and included urologist specific random intercepts. We estimated the intra-class correlation (ICC) and predicted the probability of P3P registration among urologists.

Results

A total of 2629 men were seen at practices that participated in P3P and 1174 (45%) registered to use P3P. Forty-one percent of the total variance of P3P registration was attributed to clustering of men under a specific urologist's care. In contrast, only 1.5% of the variance of P3P registration was explained by patient factors. Our model did not include data on socioeconomic, literacy or psychosocial factors, which limits the interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

These results suggest that urologists' effect far outweighs patient factors in a man's decision to enroll in P3P. Strategies that encourage providers to increase decision aid adoption in their practices are warranted.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Clinical Impact of the Predict Prostate Risk Communication Tool in Men Newly Diagnosed with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Predict Prostate is a freely available online personalised risk communication tool for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Its accuracy has been assessed in multiple validation studies, but its clinical impact among patients has not hitherto been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of the tool on patient decision-making and disease perception.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicentre randomised controlled trial was performed across eight UK centres among newly diagnosed men considering either active surveillance or radical treatment. A total of 145 patients were included between 2018 and 2020, with median age 67 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 61-72) and prostate-specific antigen 6.8 ng/ml (IQR 5.1-8.8).

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomised to either standard of care (SOC) information or SOC and a structured presentation of the Predict Prostate tool.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Validated questionnaires were completed by assessing the impact of the tool on decisional conflict, uncertainty, anxiety, and perception of survival.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Mean Decisional Conflict Scale scores were 26% lower in the Predict Prostate group (mean = 16.1) than in the SOC group (mean = 21.7; p = 0.027). Scores on the "support", "uncertainty", and "value clarity" subscales all favoured Predict Prostate (all p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in anxiety scores or final treatment selection between the two groups. Patient perception of 15-yr prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival benefit from radical treatment were considerably lower and more accurate among men in the Predict Prostate group (p < 0.001). In total, 57% of men reported that the Predict Prostate estimates for PCSM were lower than expected, and 36% reported being less likely to select radical treatment. Over 90% of patients in the intervention group found it useful and 94% would recommend it to others.

CONCLUSIONS

Predict Prostate reduces decisional conflict and uncertainty, and shifts patient perception around prognosis to be more realistic. This randomised trial demonstrates that Predict Prostate can directly inform the complex decision-making process in prostate cancer and is felt to be useful by patients. Future larger trials are warranted to test its impact upon final treatment decisions.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this national study, we assessed the impact of an individualised risk communication tool, called Predict Prostate, on patient decision-making after a diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. Men were randomly assigned to two groups, which received either standard counselling and information, or this in addition to a structured presentation of the Predict Prostate tool. Men who saw the tool were less conflicted and uncertain in their decision-making, and recommended the tool highly. Those who saw the tool had more realistic perception about their long-term survival and the potential impact of treatment upon this.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

The use of an individualised risk communication tool, such as Predict Prostate, reduces patient decisional conflict and uncertainty when deciding about treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. The tool leads to more realistic perceptions about survival outcomes and prognosis.

Improving Shared Decision Making in Latino Men With Prostate Cancer: A Thematic Analysis

Background. Multiple studies have shown that digitally mediated decision aids help prepare patients for medical decision making with their providers. However, few studies have investigated whether decision-support preferences differ between non-English-speaking and English-speaking Latino men with limited literacy. Objective. To identify and compare health information seeking patterns, preferences for information presentation, and interest in digital decision aids in a sample of Southern Californian underserved Latino men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer at a county hospital. Methods. We conducted semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews with 12 Spanish-speaking and 8 English-speaking Latino men using a purposive sampling technique. Following transcription of taped interviews, Spanish interviews were translated. Using a coding protocol developed by the team, two bilingual members jointly analyzed the transcripts for emerging themes. Coder agreement exceeded 80%. Differences were resolved through discussion. Results. Thematic differences between groups with different preferred languages emerged. Most respondents engaged in online health information seeking using cellphones, perceived a paternalistic patient-provider relationship, and expressed willingness to use hypothetical digital decision aids if recommended by their provider. English speakers reported higher digital technology proficiency for health-related searches. They also more frequently indicated family involvement in digital search related to their condition and preferred self-guided, web-based decision aids. In comparison, Spanish speakers reported lower digital technology proficiency and preferred family-involved, coach-guided, paper and visual decision aids. English speakers reported substantially higher levels of formal education. Conclusion. Preferences regarding the use of digital technology to inform prostate cancer treatment decision making among underserved Latino men varied depending on preferred primary language. Effective preparation of underserved Latino men for shared decision making requires consideration of alternative approaches depending on level of education attainment and preferred primary language.

Feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of online supportive care for individuals living with and beyond lung cancer: a systematic review

Purpose

To examine the evidence of the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of online supportive care interventions for people living with and beyond lung cancer (LWBLC).

Methods

Studies were identified through searches of Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL databases using a structured search strategy. The inclusion criteria (1) examined the feasibility, acceptability, and/or efficacy of an online intervention aiming to provide supportive care for people living with and beyond lung cancer; (2) delivered an intervention in a single arm or RCT study pre/post design; (3) if a mixed sample, presented independent lung cancer data.

Results

Eight studies were included; two randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies reported on the following outcomes: feasibility and acceptability of an online, supportive care intervention, and/or changes in quality of life, emotional functioning, physical functioning, and/or symptom distress.

Conclusion

Preliminary evidence suggests that online supportive care among individuals LWBLC is feasible and acceptable, although there is little high-level evidence. Most were small pilot and feasibility studies, suggesting that online supportive care in this group is in its infancy. The integration of online supportive care into the cancer pathway may improve quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and reduce symptom distress. Online modalities of supportive care can increase reach and accessibility of supportive care platforms, which could provide tailored support. People LWBLC display high symptom burden and unmet supportive care needs. More research is needed to address the dearth of literature in online supportive care for people LWBLC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06274-x.

Decision Aids for Shared Decision-making in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Decision aids (DAs) aim to support patients in the process of shared decision-making for complex treatment decisions. To improve patient-centered care in uro-oncology, it is essential to evaluate the availability and quality of existing DAs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of existing DAs for patients across the most prevalent uro-oncological entities.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic literature search (MedLine, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and CCMed) was conducted to identify DAs for treatment decisions for patients with prostate, renal, or bladder cancer. All studies reporting on the development or evaluation of DAs were included. The DAs were examined based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and the evaluation studies were compared in accordance with Standards for Universal reporting of a patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature search identified 1995 potentially relevant publications. Thirty-two studies reporting on 25 DAs met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two DAs address prostate cancer, two renal tumor, and one bladder cancer. In the majority of DAs (n = 20), patients can enter individual data. A few (n = 6) DAs allow for personalization using a risk-adapted presentation of treatment options. The percentage of IPDAS criteria met in DAs ranged between 50% and 100% (median 87.5%), and the studies' adherence to the SUNDAE checklist was between 62% and 96% (median 86.6%). Evaluation studies suggest that interventions are likely efficacious. However, a preliminary meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between "DA" and "usual care" for decisional conflict or decisional regret.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that a number of well-developed DAs exist in urology. However, there is a need for specific instruments targeting kidney and bladder cancer. Personalization of tools and adherence to international standards of DAs should be further improved.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The majority of uro-oncological decision aids target prostate cancer, whereas fewer address kidney or bladder cancer. The quality of the existing instruments is high, but can be increased further to better address specific needs of individual patients.

Patient Preferences and Treatment Decisions for Prostate Cancer: Results From A Statewide Urological Quality Improvement Collaborative

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between influential factors and treatment decisions among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We identified men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry diagnosed with localized PCa between 2018-2020 who completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. We analyzed the proportion of active surveillance (AS) between men who stated future bladder, bowel, and sexual problems (termed influential factors) had "a lot of influence" on their treatment decisions versus other responses. We also assessed the relationship between influential factors, confirmatory testing results and choice of AS.

RESULTS

A total of 509 men completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. Treatment decisions aligned with influential factors for 88% of men with favorable risk and 49% with unfavorable risk PCa. A higher proportion of men who identified bladder, bowel and sexual concerns as having "a lot of influence" on their treatment decision chose AS, compared with men with other influential factors, although not statistically significant (44% vs 35%, P = .11). Similar results were also found when men were stratified based on PCa risk groups (favorable risk: 78% vs 67%; unfavorable risk: 17% vs 9%, respectively). Despite a small sample size, a higher proportion of men with non-reassuring confirmatory testing selected AS if influential factors had "a lot of influence" compared to "no influence" on their treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

Men's concerns for future bladder, bowel, and sexual function problems, as elicited by a decision aid, may help explain treatment selection that differs from traditional clinical recommendation.

Implementation of prostate cancer treatment decision aid in Michigan: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The American Urological Association White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) into Urological Practice suggested SDM represents the state of the art in counseling for patients who are faced with difficult or uncertain medical decisions. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) implemented a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in 2018 to help newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients make shared decisions with their clinicians. We conducted a qualitative study to assess statewide implementation of P3P throughout MUSIC.

METHODS

We recruited urologists and staff from 17 MUSIC practices (8 implementation and 9 comparator practices) to understand how practices engaged patients on treatment discussions and to assess facilitators and barriers to implementing P3P. Interview guides were developed based on the Tailored Interventions for Chronic Disease (TICD) Framework. Interviews were transcribed for analysis and coded independently by two investigators in NVivo, PRO 12. Additionally, quantitative program data were integrated into thematic analyses.

RESULTS

We interviewed 15 urologists and 11 staff from 16 practices. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated three key themes including the following: (i) P3P is compatible as a SDM tool as over 80% of implementation urologists asked patients to complete the P3P questionnaire routinely and used P3P reports during treatment discussions; (ii) patient receptivity was demonstrated by 370 (50%) of newly diagnosed patients (n = 737) from 8 practices enrolled in P3P with 78% completion rate, which accounts for 39% of all newly diagnosed patients in these practices; and (iii) urologists' attitudes towards SDM varied. Over a third of urologists stated they did not rely on a decision aid. Comparator practices indicated habit, inertia, or concerns about clinic flow as reasons for not adopting P3P and some were unconvinced a decision aid is needed in their practice.

CONCLUSION

Urologists and staff affiliated with MUSIC implementation sites indicated that P3P focuses the treatment discussion on items that are important to patients. Experiences of implementation practices indicate that once initiated, there were no negative effects on clinic flow and urologists indicated P3P saves time during patient counseling, as patients were better prepared for focused discussions. Lack of awareness, personal habits, and inertia are reasons for not implementing P3P among the comparator practices.

Decision regret, adverse outcomes, and treatment choice in men with localized prostate cancer: Results from a multi-site randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer must navigate a highly preference-sensitive decision between treatment options with varying adverse outcome profiles. We evaluated whether use of a decision support tool previously shown to decrease decisional conflict also impacted the secondary outcome of post-treatment decision regret.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to receive personalized decision support via the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate or usual care prior to a final treatment decision. Symptoms were measured just before randomization and 6 months later; decision regret was measured at 6 months along with records review to ascertain treatment choices. Regression modeling explored associations between baseline variables including race and D`Amico risk, study group, and 6-month variables regret, choice, and symptoms.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 287 of 392 (73%) men returned questionnaires of which 257 (89%) had made a treatment choice. Of that group, 201 of 257 (78%) completely answered the regret scale. Regret was not significantly different between participants randomized to the P3P intervention compared to the control group (P = 0.360). In univariate analyses, we found that Black men, men with hormonal symptoms, and men with bowel symptoms reported significantly higher decision regret (all P < 0.01). Significant interactions were detected between race and study group (intervention vs. usual care) in the multivariable model; use of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate was associated with significantly decreased decisional regret among Black men (P = 0.037). Interactions between regret, symptoms and treatment revealed that (1) men choosing definitive treatment and reporting no hormonal symptoms reported lower regret compared to all others; and (2) men choosing active surveillance and reporting bowel symptoms had higher regret compared to all others.

CONCLUSION

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate decision support tool may be most beneficial in minimizing decisional regret for Black men considering treatment options for newly-diagnosed prostate cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01844999.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Genitourinary Cancer Care: Re-envisioning the Future

CONTEXT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated rapid changes in medical practice. Many of these changes may add value to care, creating opportunities going forward.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-informed, expert-derived review of genitourinary cancer care moving forward following the initial COVID-19 pandemic.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A collaborative narrative review was conducted using literature published through May 2020 (PubMed), which comprised three main topics: reduced in-person interactions arguing for increasing virtual and image-based care, optimisation of the delivery of care, and the effect of COVID-19 in health care facilities on decision-making by patients and their families.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Patterns of care will evolve following the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine, virtual care, and telemonitoring will increase and could offer broader access to multidisciplinary expertise without increasing costs. Comprehensive and integrative telehealth solutions will be necessary, and should consider patients' mental health and access differences due to socioeconomic status. Investigations and treatments will need to maximise efficiency and minimise health care interactions. Solutions such as one stop clinics, day case surgery, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and oral or less frequent drug dosing will be preferred. The pandemic necessitated a triage of those patients whose treatment should be expedited, delayed, or avoided, and may persist with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in circulation. Patients whose demographic characteristics are at the highest risk of complications from COVID-19 may re-evaluate the benefit of intervention for less aggressive cancers. Clinical research will need to accommodate virtual care and trial participation. Research dissemination and medical education will increasingly utilise virtual platforms, limiting in-person professional engagement; ensure data dissemination; and aim to enhance patient engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic will have lasting effects on the delivery of health care. These changes offer opportunities to improve access, delivery, and the value of care for patients with genitourinary cancers but raise concerns that physicians and health administrators must consider in order to ensure equitable access to care.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically changed the care provided to many patients with genitourinary cancers. This has necessitated a transition to telemedicine, changes in threshold or delays in many treatments, and an opportunity to reimagine patient care to maintain safety and improve value moving forward.

Decision support for men with prostate cancer: Concordance between treatment choice and tumor risk

BACKGROUND

Decision support tools improve decisional conflict and elicit patient preferences related to prostate cancer treatment. It was hypothesized that men using the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) would be more likely to pursue guideline-concordant treatment.

METHODS

Men from a trial assessing the P3P decision support intervention were identified. The primary exposure was allocation to P3P (vs usual care), and the outcome was appropriate treatment per guidelines (eg, low risk = active surveillance). It was assessed whether providers recommended against any treatment options (ie, restricted). A multivariable model was fit for men with low-risk cancer that estimated the odds of the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

This study identified 295 men in the cohort: 113 (38%) had low-risk disease, 119 (40%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 63 (21%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Among low-risk patients, more men pursued active surveillance after using P3P whether they were given unrestricted (62% vs 54% with usual care; P = .54) or restricted options (71% vs 59% with usual care; P = .34). After adjustments, only Black race (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.89) and restricted options (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.65) had an inverse association with the receipt of surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer. An impact associated with P3P versus usual care (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.36-2.20) was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Among men in a trial assessing a decision support tool, Black race and restricted treatment options were associated with less use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Although the P3P instrument ameliorates decisional conflict, its use was not associated with more appropriate alignment of treatment with disease risk.

Comparing Perspectives of Canadian Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer and Health Care Professionals About Active Surveillance

Active surveillance (AS) has gained acceptance as a primary management approach for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC). In this qualitative study, we compared perspectives between patients and health care professionals (HCP) to identify what may contribute to patient-provider discordance, influence patient decision-making, and interfere with the uptake of AS. We performed a systematic comparison of perspectives about AS reported from focus groups with men eligible for AS (7 groups, N = 52) and HCP (5 groups, N = 48) who engaged in conversations about AS with patient. We used conventional content analysis to scrutinize separately focus group transcripts and reached a consensus on similar or divergent viewpoints between them. Patients and clinicians agreed that AS was appropriate for low grade PC and understood the low-risk nature of the disease. They shared the perspective that disease status was a critical factor to pursue or discontinue AS. However, men expressed a greater emphasis on quality of life in their decisions related to AS. Patients and clinicians differed in their perspectives on the clarity, availability, and volume of information needed and offered; clinicians acknowledged variations between HCP when presenting AS, while patients were often compelled to seek additional information beyond what was provided by physicians and experienced difficulty in finding or interpreting information applicable to their situation. A greater understanding of discordant perspectives about AS between patients and HCP can help improve patient engagement and education, inform development of knowledge-based tools or aids for decision-making, and identify areas that require standardization across the clinical practice.

Item response theory analysis and properties of decisional conflict scales: findings from two multi-site trials of men with localized prostate cancer

Background

Decisional conflict is associated with decision quality and may affect decision outcomes. In the health sciences literature, the Decisional Conflict Scale is widely used to measure decisional conflict, yet limited research has described the psychometric properties of the Decisional Conflict Scale subscales and of the low literacy version of the scale. The purpose of this secondary data analysis was therefore to examine properties of the original (DCS-12) and low literacy (LL DCS-10) Decisional Conflict Scales using Classical Measurement Theory and Item Response Theory.

Methods

Data from two multi-site trials of men with prostate cancer were used to analyze the DCS-12, LL DCS-10, and an aggregated DCS-12 dataset in which five response options were aggregated into three. Internal consistency was estimated with Cronbach’s alphas. Subscale correlations were evaluated with Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Item difficulty, item discrimination, and test information were evaluated using Graded Response Modeling (GRM). The likelihood ratio test guided model selection.

Results

Cronbach’s alphas for the total scales and three of four subscales were ≥ 0.85. Alphas ranged from 0.34–0.57 for the support subscales. Subscale correlations ranged from 0.42–0.71 (P < 0.001). Items on the DCS-12 exhibited the widest range of difficulty. Two items on the support subscale had low to moderate discrimination and contributed little information. Only the DCS-12 was informative across the full range of decisional conflict values.

Conclusions

Lack of precision in the support subscale raises concerns about subscale validity. The DCS-12 is most capable of discriminating between respondents with high and low decisional conflict. Evaluation of interventions to reduce decisional conflict must consider the above findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-019-0853-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment - A systematic review

CONTEXT

Despite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools.

OBJECTIVE

To identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990-2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified.

RESULTS

International Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients' values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.

Patient-Centered Preference Assessment to Improve Satisfaction With Care Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories.

RESULTS

Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups ( P < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; P < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months ( P < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group ( P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.

Evaluating Clinical Implementation Approaches for Prostate Cancer Decision Support

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making is widely promoted for counseling men with localized prostate cancer. Results of randomized trials suggest decision aid efficacy. However, few practices or institutions have implemented decision support as standard practice. In this study we evaluated various implementation strategies for the decision aid P3P (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate) and analyzed feedback from clinical site staff and providers.

METHODS

A hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial was conducted. Primary data were collected in 6 urology clinics of 3 geographically distinct health networks. During the implementation phase site specific strategies were codesigned with site leaders. Referral and access metrics for men with localized prostate cancer were monitored for up to 7 months. Clinical staff reports of barriers and facilitators of implementation were evaluated in professionally facilitated focus groups.

RESULTS

Of 495 men with localized prostate cancer seen in the clinics 252 (51%, 95% CI 46-55) were informed of the program and of those men 107 (43%, 95% CI 36-49) accessed it. The highest access rates were observed with patient care coordinator e-mail and telephone contact (82%) or verbal physician instruction followed by e-mail and telephone invitations (87%). During focus groups physicians appraised the summaries as useful. Staff identified barriers included creating new workflows within heavy workloads and staff misunderstanding of context and resources. Promoters of successful implementation included an identified clinical lead and physician engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation success was realized when physicians engaged and staff provided followup contact. New practice changes to implement interventions require multimodal strategies for early success.

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.

Assigning value to preparation for prostate cancer decision making: a willingness to pay analysis

BACKGROUND

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) is a web-based decision support system for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer that has demonstrated efficacy in reducing decisional conflict. Our objective was to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for men's decisional preparation activities.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized trial of P3P, usual care group participants received typical preparation for decision making plus referral to publicly-available, educational websites. Intervention group participants received the same, plus online P3P educational media specific to the user's personal preferences and values, and a communication coaching component tailored to race\ethnicity, age and language. WTP data were collected one week after physician consultation. An iterative bidding direct contingent valuation survey format was used, randomly assigning participants to high or low starting values (SV). Tobit models were used to explore associations between SV-adjusted WTP and age, education, marital and work-status, insurance, decision-control preference and decision-making stage.

RESULTS

Of 392 participants enrolled, 141 P3P and 107 usual care (UC) provided a WTP value. Men were willing to pay a median $25 (IQR $10-100) for P3P in addition to usual care preparation materials. In the final multivariable tobit regression model, SV, marital status, stage of decision making and income were significantly associated with WTP for P3P. Decision control preference was considered marginally significant (p = 0.11). Men were WTP a median $30 (IQR $10-$200) for usual care material alone. In the final multivariable model, SV, education, and stage of decision making were significantly associated with WTP in usual care.

CONCLUSION

WTP was similar for UC and for the addition of P3P to UC decision preparation. The WTP values were associated with demographic and preference variables. Findings can help focus decision support on future patients who would benefit most: those without strong support systems, at earlier stages of decision making, and open to a shared-decision style.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT NCT01844999 . Registered May 3, 2013.

Understanding health decision making: An exploration of homophily

The phenomenon of homophily first was described in Lazarsfeld and Merton's classic 1954 friendship analysis as a tendency for friendships to form between those who are alike in some respect. Although theories of decision making address a host of factors that affect the process, the influence of individuals with homophilic ties remains unaccounted for and unexplained. The purpose of this paper is to review theories relevant to decision making and describe what is known about the relationship between homophily and health care decision making. Further, we provide new evidence suggesting the influence of homophily on decision making in results from a randomized, multi-center clinical trial of American men with localized prostate cancer. A diverse sample of 293 men with a new diagnosis of localized prostate cancer reported relevant personal factors influencing the care management decision before randomization to a decision aid or usual care, between 2013 and 2015. Among these personal factors were the level of influence or importance ascribed to various individuals at the time of the treatment decision. One month later, participants reported how prepared they were for decision making. 123 men (42%) reported friends and/or coworkers as information sources, of which 65 (53%) indicated that friends and/or coworkers influenced the care decision. Men who reported friends/coworkers as information sources had significantly higher one-month preparation scores. Our review of decision making theories and practical applicability suggests the influence of homophilic relationships manifests in health care decision making. Faced with a list of options to manage health conditions, decision makers turn to known individuals in their environments, particularly those individuals with whom the decision maker can identify. Clinicians may solicit information from patients about influential others and explain how that support fits into the health decision at hand without dishonoring the importance of the homophilic relationship.