A community-based intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among Hispanic American men changed knowledge and role preferences: a cluster RCT

Community Health Worker Interventions for Men: A Scoping Review Using the RE-AIM Framework

INTRODUCTION

Community health workers (CHWs) are health promotion specialists who are trusted members of the community served and have a close understanding of the community's needs and values. CHWs are a cost-effective and scalable workforce to promote health among men through tailored approaches. The purpose of the present review was to use the RE-AIM Framework to assess design, implementation, and outcomes of CHW-implemented health promotion efforts tailored for men to provide recommendations for future efforts.

METHODS

The protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO. The primary inclusion criteria were that the interventions were (a) implemented at least partially by CHWs, (b) conducted only among men, and (c) designed to improve a health-related outcome. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus were searched using a librarian-generated search strategy. In all, 1,437 articles were uploaded to Rayyan and two reviewers blindly reviewed each article for inclusion. A total of 24 articles met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Most interventions (a) targeted men under 50 years, (b) were conducted among a subset of underserved men, (c) improved health outcomes, (d) community-based and informed, (e) atheoretical, and (f) had satisfactory retention rates. The roles and responsibilities of CHWs were varied. Attention was given to training of CHWs, but limited attention was given to how/if the CHWs were supervised.

DISCUSSION

CHW-implemented interventions can improve health outcomes among men. Opportunities exist to build on past interventions, such as addressing mental health and incorporating prosocial aspects of masculinity. The results have implications for designing similar interventions.

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.

A Study to Compare a CHW-Led Versus Physician-Led Intervention for Prostate Cancer Screening Decision-Making among Black Men

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States and harms Black men disproportionately. Most US men are uninformed about many key facts important to make an informed decision about prostate cancer. Most experts agree that it is important for men to learn about these problems as early as possible in their lifetime.

Objectives

To compare the effect of a community health worker (CHW)-led educational session with a physician-led educational session that counsels Black men about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.

Methods

One hundred eighteen Black men recruited in 8 community-based settings attended a prostate cancer screening education session led by either a CHW or a physician. Participants completed surveys before and after the session to assess knowledge, decisional conflict, and perceptions about the intervention. Both arms used a decision aid that explains the benefits, risks, and controversies of PSA screening and decision coaching.

Results

There was no significant difference in decisional conflict change by group: 24.31 physician led versus 30.64 CHW led (P=.31). The CHW-led group showed significantly greater improvement on knowledge after intervention, change (SD): 2.6 (2.81) versus 5.1 (3.19), P<.001). However, those in the physician-led group were more likely to agree that the speaker knew a lot about PSA testing (P<.001) and were more likely to trust the speaker (P<.001).

Conclusions

CHW-led interventions can effectively assist Black men with complex health decision-making in community-based settings. This approach may improve prostate cancer knowledge and equally minimize decisional conflict compared with a physician-led intervention.

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to Enhance Participation of Racial/Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Systematic Review

There has not been a significant improvement in the rate of clinical trial accrual in more than 20 years. Worse, the challenge of inadequate representation among racial and ethnic minorities also persists, deepening disparities in health. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is a participatory communication method that centers on effective dialogue between researchers and community stakeholders with the goal of creating an equitable partnership for health and social change. The objective of the current study was to provide an update since a systematic review in 2012, on the current status of the empirical research, with a particular focus on the elements of CBPR methods used to improve the rate of accrual of members of racial and ethnic minority communities for clinical trials. Our systematic review found a large increase in the number of CBPR related studies and studies related to racial and ethnic representation in research. More than 85% of studies employing CBPR methods saw statistically positive outcomes. Specifically, the elements of CBPR that are associated with these positive outcomes include community partner participation in (1) a study advisory committee, (2) data collection, (3) the development of interventions, and (4) participant recruitment. However, the results of our study indicate that researchers need to be more transparent about the extent of community participation as well as more thoroughly and accurately describe the nature of the partnership with members of minority communities in order to build upon the scientific literature on community-engaged methods.

Encouragement of cervical cancer screening via an evolutionary theoretical approach: a randomized controlled study in Japan

•

This is the first study of evolutionary approaches to encourage cancer screening.

•

We tested the effect of a message targeting the fundamental human motive of kin care.

•

Kin care messages are such as “get cervical cancer screening for future childbirth.”

•

A message targeting the fundamental motive of disease avoidance was also tested.

•

The kin care message was as effective as the disease avoidance message.

The introduction of an evolutionary perspective into public health research has received attention in recent years. We aimed to examine the effects of messages that target the fundamental human motive of kin care (i.e., childbirth and parenting) on cervical cancer screening recommendations, based on an evolutionary theoretical approach. A randomized controlled study was conducted in Japan. Female participants (n = 969) were randomly assigned either to a group that received an intervention message that targeted the fundamental motive of kin care (recommending cervical cancer screening for future childbearing), or that targeted the fundamental motive of disease avoidance, or a control message. Intention to obtain cervical cancer screening was assessed both before and after reading the messages. A one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s or Games–Howell test was conducted. Each of the intervention message targeting the fundamental motive of kin care and of the message targeting disease avoidance significantly increased intention to obtain cervical cancer screening versus a control message (M = 0.76 vs. M = 0.17, p < 0.001; M = 0.74 vs. M = 0.17, p < 0.001, respectively). A message that targeted the fundamental motive of kin care was as effective as one targeting the fundamental motive of disease avoidance. Health professionals should add messages that target the fundamental motive of kin care to their repertoire to encourage cervical cancer screening among women who wish future childbirth and parenting (e.g., “Delayed detection of cervical cancer may prevent your future childbirth and parenting. So let’s obtain cervical cancer screening regularly for your future childbirth and parenting.”)

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.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied.

PURPOSE

To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = -9.59; 95% CI -18.94, -0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI -0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials.

LIMITATIONS

Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.[Box: see text].

Awareness and knowledge about prostate cancer among male teachers in the Sunyani Municipality, Ghana

Objective

The study was aimed at assessing the awareness and knowledge of prostate cancer (PC) among male teachers in the Sunyani municipality of Ghana.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study conducted using a structured questionnaire to collect data from 160 male teachers aged 45 years or more, randomly selected from public elementary and high schools in the Sunyani Municipality. Pearson's Chi square and Fishers exact tests were used to examine the association between socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge of PC.

Results

On average, respondents were aged 50±3.95 years. There was a universal awareness of PC. Most of the respondents could identify at least one signs and symptoms of PC (88.1%), risk factors of PC (78.8%), and indicated that PC could be treated through surgery (70.6 %), but only 37.5% of respondents knew about screening tests for PC. The study found 57.5% of them had adequate knowledge about PC. Socio-demographics characteristics were not associated with knowledge about PC. Main sources of information were the television (68%) and radio (57 %).

Conclusion

The outcomes of the study suggest the need for general educational campaigns with emphasis on modalities for the screening of PC using the appropriate media channels for accessibility.

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.

Systematic evaluation of written health information on PSA based screening in Germany

Background

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based screening for early detection of prostate cancer is common although it is associated with both benefits and potential harms (e.g., the risk of overdiagnosis). Evidence-based health information could help individuals make informed decisions about whether to undergo PSA testing or not. This evaluation aimed to determine whether the written health information materials available in Germany provide appropriate information for informed decision-making on PSA based screening.

Methods

A list of criteria was developed and used to systematically assess the quality of information on the benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening included in written health information materials. Fourteen information materials identified by information requests and online searches were evaluated independently by two of three reviewers. Consensus was achieved with a third reviewer.

Results

Of the 14 information materials evaluated, 10 (71%) list the ability to reduce the absolute risk of death from prostate cancer as a benefit of PSA testing, 9 (64%) point out the risks of follow-up diagnostics, 13 (93%) describe the risks of the available prostate cancer treatments, and all 14 specify the risk of overdiagnosis. The minority provide numerical data on benefits and risks. Partially mismatched framing was identified in four cases: two information materials report only the relative frequencies of benefits, and two report only the absolute frequencies of harms. Half of the materials encouraged participation using downplaying or frightening language.

Conclusions

The majority of health information materials in Germany describe the benefits and harms of PSA based screening, including overdiagnosis, but often lack adequate balance, neutrality and numbers.

Decision Aids for Prostate Cancer Screening Choice: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

US guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Knowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice.

RESULTS

Of 19 eligible trials (12 781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I2 = 67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I2 = 75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I2 = 60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I2 = 36%; low quality).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter.

What patient involvement means to new patients at two HIV clinics: A longitudinal, qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

This study 1) defines patient involvement from the perspective of patients new to a provider, 2) describes provider communication that patients perceive as promoting involvement, and 3) examines changes in patient definitions of involvement over time.

METHODS

We enrolled 56 patients at two HIV clinics in Houston, Texas, from August 2013 until March 2015. We interviewed patients three times during the first year of care and analyzed interviews using content analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 45 years; 54% were men. Patient definitions of involvement ranged from adherence- to decision-oriented. Analysis revealed three provider communication behaviors that patients perceive as promoting involvement: 1) soliciting patient feedback, 2) discussing treatment options and trade-offs, 3) narrating the decision-making process. Definitions of involvement can change over time as providers reframe the patient's illness as manageable and through perceived partnerships with the provider.

CONCLUSION

Provider communication plays a critical role in shaping new patients' perception of involvement and can make patients feel involved even when patients do not actively make medical decisions.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Finding strategies to make patients feel involved in their care is important, particularly for new patients, even if those strategies do not necessarily promote more talk from the patient.

Evaluation of a Computer-Based Decision Aid for Promoting Informed Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions Among African American Men: iDecide

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of iDecide on prostate cancer knowledge, informed decision-making self-efficacy, technology use self-efficacy, and intention to engage in informed decision-making among African American men.

DESIGN

One-group, pretest/posttest.

SETTING

Community settings in South Carolina.

PARTICIPANTS

African American men, ages 40 years +, without a prior prostate cancer diagnosis (n = 354).

INTERVENTION

iDecide, an embodied conversational agent-led, computer-based prostate cancer screening decision aid.

MEASURES

Prostate cancer knowledge, informed decision-making self-efficacy, technology use self-efficacy, and intention to engage in informed decision-making.

ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics, paired t tests, general linear modeling, Spearman correlations.

RESULTS

On average, participants experienced significant improvements in their prostate cancer knowledge ( P ≤ .001), informed decision-making self-efficacy ( P ≤ .001), and technology use self-efficacy ( P ≤ .001), postintervention. Additionally, 67% of participants reported an intention to engage in informed decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Given the significant improvements across all measures, this research demonstrates that embodied conversational agent-led decision aids can be used to enhance the capacity for making informed prostate cancer screening decisions among African American men and increase their technology use self-efficacy. One critical limitation of this study is that most men had received prostate cancer screening prior to engaging in our intervention, so the implications of this intervention may be different for men who do not have a history of screening. Additionally, actual engagement in informed decision-making postintervention was not assessed.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Prostate Cancer Survivors' Perceived Engagement in Treatment Decision-Making

OBJECTIVE

We examined prostate cancer patients' perceived engagement in treatment decision-making and associated factors by race/ethnicity in a multiethnic sample.

METHOD

We identified patients through the California Cancer Registry. Patients completed a cross-sectional telephone interview in English, Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin. Multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by race/ethnicity, estimated the associations of patient demographic and health status characteristics on (1) doctor asked patient to help decide treatment plan and (2) patient and doctor worked out a treatment plan together.

RESULTS

We included 855 prostate cancer patients: African American (19%), Asian American (15%), Latino (24%), and White (42%). Asian American patients were less likely than White patients to report that their doctors asked them to help decide a treatment plan (OR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.18-0.53) and that they worked out a treatment plan with their doctors (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.33-0.90). Language of interview was a significant contributing factor in stratified analysis for both outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Asian American prostate cancer patients reported less engagement in treatment decision-making, with Chinese language being a significant contributing factor. Future research should identify patient-centered strategies that effectively engage underserved patients and support healthcare providers in shared decision-making with multiethnic and multilingual patients.

Patient and Physician Factors Associated with Undisclosed Prostate Cancer Screening in a Sample of Predominantly Immigrant Black Men

Medical guidelines do not recommend prostate cancer screening, particularly without informed and shared decision making. This study investigates undisclosed opportunistic screening using prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in black immigrant and African American men. Participants (N = 142) were insured urban men, 45- to 70-years old. Patients' reports of testing were compared with medical claims to assess undisclosed PSA testing. Most (94.4 %) men preferred to share in screening decisions, but few (46.5 %) were aware PSA testing was performed. Four factors predicted being unaware of testing: low formal education, low knowledge about prostate cancer, no intention to screen, and no physician recommendation (all p's < .05). Undisclosed PSA testing was common. Both patient and provider factors increased risk of being uninformed about prostate cancer screening. Interventions combining patient education and physician engagement in shared decision making may better align practice with current prostate cancer screening guidelines.

Video-based patient decision aids: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This study reviews the published literature on the use of video-based decision aids (DA) for patients. The authors describe the areas of medicine in which video-based patient DA have been evaluated, the medical decisions targeted, their reported impact, in which countries studies are being conducted, and publication trends.

METHOD

The literature review was conducted systematically using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Pubmed databases from inception to 2016. References of identified studies were reviewed, and hand-searches of relevant journals were conducted.

RESULTS

488 studies were included and organized based on predefined study characteristics. The most common decisions addressed were cancer screening, risk reduction, advance care planning, and adherence to provider recommendations. Most studies had sample sizes of fewer than 300, and most were performed in the United States. Outcomes were generally reported as positive. This field of study was relatively unknown before 1990s but the number of studies published annually continues to increase.

CONCLUSION

Videos are largely positive interventions but there are significant remaining knowledge gaps including generalizability across populations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should consider incorporating video-based DA in their patient interactions. Future research should focus on less studied areas and the mechanisms underlying effective patient decision aids.

Improving Health Screening Uptake in Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Globally, uptake of health screening in men remains low and the effectiveness of interventions to promote screening uptake in men is not well established. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions in improving men's uptake of and intention to undergo screening, including interventions using information and communication technology and a male-sensitive approach.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Studies were sourced from five electronic databases (October 2015), experts, and references of included studies. This study included RCTs or cluster RCTs that recruited men and reported uptake of or intention to undergo screening. Two researchers independently performed study selection, appraisal, and data extraction. The interventions were grouped into those that increase uptake and those that promote informed decision making. They were further sub-analyzed according to types of intervention, male-sensitive, and web- and video-based interventions. The analysis was completed in December 2016.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

This review included 58 studies. Most studies were on prostate cancer (k=31) and HIV (k=11) screening. Most of the studies had low methodologic quality (79.3%) and after excluding them from the analysis, one study found that educational intervention (which was also male-sensitive) was effective in improving men's intention to screen (risk ratio=1.36, 95% CI=1.23, 1.50, k=1) and partner educational intervention increased men's screening uptake (risk ratio=1.77, 95% CI=1.48, 2.12, k=1). Video-based educational interventions reduced prostate cancer screening uptake (risk ratio=0.89, 95%CI=0.80, 0.99, k=1) but web-based interventions did not change men's screening intention or uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the need to conduct more robust studies to provide conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of different interventions to improve men's screening behavior.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Informed decision making before prostate-specific antigen screening: Initial results using the American Cancer Society (ACS) Decision Aid (DA) among medically underserved men

BACKGROUND

The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends men have the opportunity to make an informed decision about screening for prostate cancer (PCa). The ACS developed a unique decision aid (ACS-DA) for this purpose. However, to date, studies evaluating the efficacy of the ACS-DA are lacking. The authors evaluated the ACS-DA among a cohort of medically underserved men (MUM).

METHODS

A multiethnic cohort of MUM (n = 285) was prospectively included between June 2010 and December 2014. The ACS-DA was presented in a group format. Levels of knowledge on PCa were evaluated before and after the presentation. Participants' decisional conflict and thoughts about the presentation also were evaluated. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with having an adequate level of knowledge.

RESULTS

Before receiving the ACS-DA, 33.1% of participants had adequate knowledge on PCa, and this increased to 77% after the DA (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, higher education level (odds ratio, 11.19; P = .001) and history of another cancer (odds ratio, 7.45; P = .03) were associated with having adequate knowledge after receiving the DA. Levels of decisional conflict were low and were correlated with levels of knowledge after receiving the DA. The majority of men also rated the presentation as favorable and would recommend the ACS-DA to others.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the ACS-DA was feasible among MUM and led to increased PCa knowledge. This also correlated with low levels of decisional conflict. The ACS-DA presented to groups of men may serve as a feasible tool for informed decision making in a MUM population. Cancer 2017;123:583-591. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is considered a key component of high quality cancer care and may be supported by patient decision aids (PtDAs). Many patients, however, face multiple social disadvantages that may influence their ability to fully participate in SDM or to use PtDAs; additionally, these social disadvantages are among the determinants of health associated with greater cancer risk, unwarranted variations in care and worse outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the extent to which disadvantaged social groups in the United States (US) have been included in trials of cancer-related PtDAs and to highlight strategies, lessons learned and future opportunities for developing and evaluating PtDAs that are appropriate for disadvantaged populations.

METHODS

We selected cancer-related US studies from the Cochrane 2014 review of PtDAs and added RCTs meeting Cochrane criteria from searches of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO (January 2010 to December 2013); and reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts; three reviewers independently screened full text articles, performed data extraction and assessed: 1) inclusion of participants based on seven indicators of social disadvantage (limited education; female gender; uninsured or Medicaid status; non-U.S. nativity; non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity; limited English proficiency; low-literacy), and 2) attention to social disadvantage in the development or evaluation of PtDAs.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 39 eligible RCTs included participants from at least one disadvantaged subgroup, most frequently racial/ethnic minorities or individuals with limited education and/or low-literacy. Seventeen studies discussed strategies and lessons learned in attending to the needs of disadvantaged social groups in PtDA development; 14 studies targeted disadvantaged groups or addressed subgroup differences in PtDA evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of the US population is represented in a majority of cancer-related PtDA RCTs, but fewer studies have tailored PtDAs to address the multiple social disadvantages that may impact patients' participation in SDM. More detailed attention to the comprehensive range of social factors that determine cancer risk, variations in care and outcomes is needed in the development and evaluation of PtDAs for disadvantaged populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered 24 October 2014 in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews ( CRD42014014470 ).

Use of Decision Aids with Minority Patients: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

One potential approach to reducing health disparities among minorities is through the promotion of shared decision making (SDM). The most commonly studied SDM intervention is the decision aid (DA). While DAs have been extensively studied, we know relatively little about their use in minority populations. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the application and effectiveness of DAs in racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minorities.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DAs between 2004 and 2013. We included trials that enrolled adults (> 18 years of age) with > 50 % representation by minority patients. Four reviewers independently assessed 597 initially identified articles, and those with inconclusive results were discussed to consensus. We abstracted decision quality, patient-doctor communication, and clinical treatment decision outcomes. Results were considered significantly modified by the DA if the study reported p < 0.05.

RESULTS

We reviewed 18 RCTs of DA interventions in minority populations. The majority of interventions (78 %) addressed cancer screening. The most common mode of delivery for the DAs was personal counseling (46 %), followed by multi-media (29 %), and print materials (25 %). Most of the trials studied racial (78 %) or ethnic (17 %) minorities with only one trial focused on sexual minorities and none on gender minorities. Ten studies tailored their interventions for their minority populations. Comparing intervention vs. control, decision quality outcomes improved in six out of eight studies and patient-doctor communication improved in six out of seven studies. Of the 15 studies that reported on clinical decisions, eight demonstrated significant changes in decisions with DAs.

DISCUSSION

DAs have been effective in improving patient-doctor communication and decision quality outcomes in minority populations and could help address health disparities. However, the existing literature is almost non-existent for sexual and gender minorities and has not included the full breadth of clinical decisions that affect minority populations.

Assessing the effectiveness of decision aids for decision making in prostate cancer testing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a leading disease affecting men worldwide. Conflicting evidence within the literature provides little guidance to men contemplating whether or not to be screened for prostate cancer. This systematic review aimed to determine whether decision aids about early detection of prostate cancer improve patient knowledge and decision making about whether to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases up until March 2014 were searched. All included randomised controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Clinical selection and assessment heterogeneity among studies prevented the pooling of data for meta-analyses. Descriptive analyses of all included studies and comparison were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Significant heterogeneity was present for the design and implementation of decision aids including comparative interventions and outcomes. Eight studies were of a low methodological quality, with the remaining five of medium quality. Improvements in patient knowledge following use of a decision aid were demonstrated by 11 of the 13 included studies. Seven of 10 studies demonstrated a reduction in decisional conflict/distress. Three of four studies demonstrated no difference between a decision aid and information only in reducing decisional uncertainty. Three of five studies demonstrated an increase in decisional satisfaction with use of a decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids increase patient knowledge and confidence in decision making about prostate cancer testing. Further research into effective methods of implementation is needed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The impact of educational sessions provided on prostate cancer, and its screening tests on the knowledge level, and participation behavior of the individuals in questionnaire surveys

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to inform male participants aged fifty and older who have not been diagnosed with prostate cancer about prostate cancer screenings and to examine their participation behavior in these screenings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, in which an experimental design with a pretest-posttest control group was used, data were collected from 3 family health centers in the city center of Kars between April and July 2013. The sample group consisted of 113 male participants aged fifty years or over. A personal information and a knowledge test forms about prostate cancer screening were used to collect the data. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 0.99.

RESULTS

The mean pretest knowledge scores of the participants were determined be similar. In the posttest, the mean knowledge score of the experimental group was significantly increased compared to that of the control group. In terms of screening participation frequency, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups during the period after the training. The knowledge level was higher in patients who had previously undergone a prostate examination and/or their prostate specific antigen (PSA) level measured or those with a family history of prostate cancer or in cases with a history of a benign prostatic disease.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that the knowledge level of the risk group can be increased by training. The study also found that the increase in the knowledge level did not affect the participation behavior of the individuals in the screening tests.

Decision making and prostate cancer screening

This article presents an overview of the challenges that men encounter in making decisions about prostate cancer screening, including complex affective and cognitive factors and controversies in the interpretation of the evidence on prostate cancer screening. Shared decision making involving patient decision aids are discussed as approaches that can be used to improve the quality of prostate cancer screening decisions, including a close alignment between a man's values, goals, and preferences and his choice about screening.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

The conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the mixed messages communicated to the public about screening effectiveness make it critical to assist men in making informed decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of 2 decision aids in helping men make informed PCa screening decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A racially diverse group of male outpatients aged 45 to 70 years from 3 sites were interviewed by telephone at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months, from 2007 through 2011. We conducted intention-to-treat univariate analyses and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses, adjusting for baseline outcome measures.

INTERVENTION

Random assignment to print-based decision aid (n = 628), web-based interactive decision aid (n = 625), or usual care (UC) (n = 626).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prostate cancer knowledge, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and whether participants underwent PCa screening.

RESULTS

Of 4794 eligible men approached, 1893 were randomized. At each follow-up assessment, univariate and multivariable analyses indicated that both decision aids resulted in significantly improved PCa knowledge and reduced decisional conflict compared with UC (all P <.001). At 1 month, the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) in knowledge for the web group vs UC was 0.74, and in the print group vs UC, 0.73. Decisional conflict was significantly lower for web vs UC (d = 0.33) and print vs UC (d = 0.36). At 13 months, these differences were smaller but remained significant. At 1 month, high satisfaction was reported by significantly more print (60.4%) than web participants (52.2%; P = .009) and significantly more web (P = .001) and print (P = .03) than UC participants (45.5%). At 13 months, differences in the proportion reporting high satisfaction among print (55.7%) compared with UC (49.8%; P = .06) and web participants (50.4%; P = .10) were not significant. Screening rates at 13 months did not differ significantly among groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Both decision aids improved participants’ informed decision making about PCa screening up to 13 months later but did not affect actual screening rates. Dissemination of these decision aids may be a valuable public health tool.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196807.

Feasibility trial of a Spanish-language multimedia educational intervention

BACKGROUND

Hispanic cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical trials; research suggests lack of knowledge and language barriers contribute to low accrual. Multimedia materials offer advantages to Hispanic populations because they have high acceptability, are easy to disseminate, and can be viewed with family.

PURPOSE

Hispanic cancer patients and caregivers participated in focus groups to aid in developing a Spanish-language multimedia intervention to educate Hispanic cancer patients about clinical trials. We explored the feasibility of delivering the intervention in medical oncology clinics.

METHODS

A total of 35 patients were randomized to either the multimedia intervention group (n = 18) or a control group (n = 17) who were asked to read the National Cancer Institute's Spanish-language clinical trials brochure. Self-reported data on knowledge about and attitudes toward clinical trials, self-efficacy for participating in a clinical trial, intention to participate in a clinical trial if asked, and receptivity to information about a clinical trial were collected at baseline and 10 days later.

RESULTS

Delivery of the multimedia presentation in oncology clinics was feasible. The intervention group had more knowledge about clinical trials at follow-up than the control group; scores for intention to participate in a clinical trial by participants in the intervention group increased from 3.8 to 4.0 of a possible 5, but declined in the control group from 4.5 to 4.1. No statistically significant difference was detected between groups in scores for attitudes or self-efficacy for making a decision to participate in a clinical trial.

LIMITATIONS

Our sample size was inadequate to identify differences between the informational methods. Although all patients were asked about their willingness to participate in a clinical trial, this decision was hypothetical. In addition, the study was conducted with a sample of Spanish-speaking Hispanic cancer patients at a comprehensive cancer center in Florida. Thus, the results may not generalize to other Hispanic populations.

CONCLUSION

In the pilot project, we demonstrated the feasibility of delivering multimedia information to patients in medical oncology clinics. Because delivery in a clinical setting was found to be feasible, a larger study should be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the multimedia intervention with respect to promoting accrual of Hispanic patients to clinical trials.

Fostering informed decisions: a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of a decision aid among men registered to undergo mass screening for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer is controversial and informed decision making is recommended. Within two prostate cancer screening programs, we evaluated the impact of a print-based decision aid (DA) on decision-making outcomes.

METHODS

Men (N=543) were 54.9 (SD=8.1) years old and 61% were African-American. The 2(booklet type: DA vs. usual care (UC))× 2(delivery mode: Home vs. Clinic) randomized controlled trial assessed decisional and screening outcomes at baseline, 2-months, and 13-months.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat linear regression analyses using generalized estimating equations revealed that DA participants reported improved knowledge relative to UC (B=.41, p<.05). For decisional conflict, per-protocol analyses revealed a group by time interaction (B=-.69, p<.05), indicating that DA participants were less likely to report decisional conflict at 2-months compared to UC participants (OR=.49, 95% CI: .26-.91, p<.05).

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized trial to evaluate a DA in the context of free mass screening, a challenging setting in which to make an informed decision. The DA was highly utilized by participants, improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results are valuable in understanding ways to improve the decisions of men who seek screening and can be easily implemented within many settings.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised risk communication on informed decision making by individuals taking screening tests. We also assess individual components that constitute informed decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Two authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) without language restrictions. We searched from 2006 to March 2012. The date ranges for the previous searches were from 1989 to December 2005 for PsycINFO and from 1985 to December 2005 for other databases. For the original version of this review, we also searched CancerLit  and Science Citation Index (March 2001). We also reviewed the reference lists and conducted citation searches of included studies and other systematic reviews in the field, to identify any studies missed during the initial search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' for individuals undergoing screening procedures, and reporting measures of informed decisions and also cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes addressing the decision by such individuals, of whether or not to undergo screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each included trial for risk of bias, and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of interventions, and relevant outcome data. We used standard statistical methods to combine data using RevMan version 5, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different conditions for screening, and studies based only on high-risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. 

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies involving 28,700 people. Nineteen new studies were identified in this update, adding to the 22 studies included in the previous two iterations of the review. Three studies measured informed decision with regard to the uptake of screening following personalised risk communication as a part of their intervention. All of these three studies were at low risk of bias and there was strong evidence that the interventions enhanced informed decision making, although with heterogeneous results. Overall 45.2% (592/1309) of participants who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20.2% (229/1135) of participants who received generic risk information. The overall odds ratios (ORs) for informed decision were 4.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62 to 5.53 for fixed effect) and 3.65 (95% CI 2.13 to 6.23 for random effects). Nine studies measured increase in knowledge, using different scales. All of these studies showed an increase in knowledge with personalised risk communication. In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception, but the evidence was of poor quality. Four out of six studies reported non-significant changes in anxiety following personalised risk communication to the participants. Overall there was a small non-significant decrease in the anxiety scores. Most studies (32/41) measured the uptake of screening tests following interventions. Our results (OR 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29)) constitute low quality evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication in which a risk score was provided (6 studies) or the participants were given their categorised risk (6 studies), increases uptake of screening tests. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence from three trials that personalised risk estimates incorporated within communication interventions for screening programmes enhance informed choices. However the evidence for increasing the uptake of such screening tests with similar interventions is weak, and it is not clear if this increase is associated with informed choices. Studies included a diverse range of screening programmes. Therefore, data from this review do not allow us to draw conclusions about the best interventions to deliver personalised risk communication for enhancing informed decisions. The results are dominated by findings from the topic area of mammography and colorectal cancer. Caution is therefore required in generalising from these results, and particularly for clinical topics other than mammography and colorectal cancer screening.

Assessing knowledge and attitudes towards screening among users of Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)

BACKGROUND

Informed decision making is recognized as important in screening. Invitees should be provided with relevant information, enabling them to make an informed decision. This may be more difficult in ethnic minority and low socio-economic status groups. We aimed to assess the proportion of informed decisions to participate in a faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pilot and to explore differences in knowledge and attitude across various subgroups.

METHODS

Asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 were invited to a second round of a Dutch FIT-based pilot screening programme for CRC. An information leaflet containing all information relevant to enable informed decision making accompanied the invitation. Informed choice was assessed by a mailed questionnaire. Knowledge was elicited through 18 items and attitude towards screening through four items. Main outcome measure was the proportion of informed decision makers among participants. Differences between subgroups were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 5367 screening participants, 2774 (52%) completed the questionnaire. Knowledge was adequate in 2554 (92%); 2736 (99%) showed a positive attitude towards screening. A total of 2525 persons had made an informed choice (91%); male gender, low education level, non-Dutch ethnicity and not speaking Dutch at home were negatively associated with having adequate knowledge in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

In FIT-based screening for CRC, the majority of responders made an informed decision to participate. However, we did not succeed in equally providing all population subgroups with sufficient information. Future initiatives should be aimed at reaching these groups to further enable informed decision making.

Interventions to improve decision making and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the management of prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by prostate cancer (PCa) and are at risk for not receiving informed decision making (IDM). We conducted a systematic literature review on interventions to improve: (1) IDM about PCa in screening-eligible minority men, and (2) quality of life (QOL) in minority PCa survivors.

DATA SOURCES

MeSH headings for PCa, ethnic minorities, and interventions were searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. SUBJECT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We identified U.S.-based, English-language articles (1985 - 2010) on interventions to improve PCa IDM and QOL that included 50% or more minority patients or analyses stratified by race/ethnicity.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Articles (n = 19) were evaluated and scored for quality using a Downs and Black (DB) system. Interventions were organized by those enhancing 1) IDM about PCa screening and 2) improving QOL and symptom among PCa survivors. Outcomes were reported by intervention type (educational seminar, printed material, telephone-based, video and web-based).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies evaluated interventions for enhancing IDM about PCa screening and five evaluated programs to improve outcomes for PCa survivors. Knowledge scores were statistically significantly increased in 12 of 13 screening studies that measured knowledge, with ranges of effect varying across intervention types: educational programs (13% - 48% increase), print (11% - 18%), videotape/DVD (16%), and web-based (7% - 20%). In the final screening study, an intervention to improve decision-making about screening increased decisional self-efficacy by 9%. Five cognitive-behavioral interventions improved QOL among minority men being treated for localized PCa through enhancing problem solving and coping skills.

LIMITATIONS

Weak study designs, small sample sizes, selection biases, and variation in follow-up intervals across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational programs were the most effective intervention for improving knowledge among screening-eligible minority men. Cognitive behavioral strategies improved QOL for minority men treated for localized PCa.

Developing partnerships and recruiting dyads for a prostate cancer informed decision making program: lessons learned from a community-academic-clinical team

Prostate cancer (PrCA) is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer among men. PrCA mortality in African-American (AA) men in South Carolina is ~50% higher than for AAs in the U.S as a whole. AA men also have low rates of participation in cancer research. This paper describes partnership development and recruitment efforts of a Community-Academic-Clinical research team for a PrCA education intervention with AA men and women that was designed to address the discordance between high rates of PrCA mortality and limited participation in cancer research. Guided by Vesey's framework on recruitment and retention of minority groups in research, recruitment strategies were selected and implemented following multiple brainstorming sessions with partners having established community relationships. Based on findings from these sessions culturally appropriate strategies are recommended for recruiting AA men and women for PrCA education research. Community-based research recruitment challenges and lessons learned are presented.