Quality of internet information to aid patient decision making in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Assessment of the quality of online patient information resources for patients considering parastomal hernia treatment

AIM

The aim was to examine the quality of online patient information resources for patients considering parastomal hernia treatment.

METHODS

A Google search was conducted using lay search terms for patient facing sources on parastomal hernia. The quality of the content was assessed using the validated DISCERN instrument. Readability of written content was established using the Flesch-Kincaid score. Sources were also assessed against the essential content and process standards from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) framework for shared decision making support tools. Content analysis was also undertaken to explore what the sources covered and to identify any commonalities across the content.

RESULTS

Fourteen sources were identified and assessed using the identified tools. The mean Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score was 43.61, suggesting that the information was difficult to read. The overall quality of the identified sources was low based on the pooled analysis of the DISCERN and Flesch-Kincaid scores, and when assessed against the criteria in the NICE standards framework for shared decision making tools. Content analysis identified eight categories encompassing 59 codes, which highlighted considerable variation between sources.

CONCLUSIONS

The current information available to patients considering parastomal hernia treatment is of low quality and often does not contain enough information on treatment options for patients to be able to make an informed decision about the best treatment for them. There is a need for high-quality information, ideally co-produced with patients, to provide patients with the necessary information to allow them to make informed decisions about their treatment options when faced with a symptomatic parastomal hernia.

Minimum standards of pelvic exenterative practice: PelvEx Collaborative guideline

This document outlines the important aspects of caring for patients who have been diagnosed with advanced pelvic cancer. It is primarily aimed at those who are establishing a service that adequately caters to this patient group. The relevant literature has been summarized and an attempt made to simplify the approach to management of these complex cases.

Utilising quality of life outcome trajectories to aid patient decision making in pelvic exenteration

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making in pelvic exenteration is a complex and detailed process, which must balance clinical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), whilst addressing and valuing the patient priorities. Communicating patient-centred information on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes is an essential component of this. The aim of this systematic review was to understand the impact of pelvic exenteration on QoL PROs over a longitudinal period and to develop QoL trajectories to support decision-making in this context.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched between 1^st January 2000 and 20^th December 2021 Studies reporting on PROs, including QoL, in adults undergoing pelvic exenteration were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Data from studies reporting QoL using the same outcome measure at the same candidate timepoint were extracted and synthesised to develop a longitudinal QoL trajectory.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies consisting of 1370 patients were included in this review. QoL trajectories were constructed in the domains of physical function, psychological function, role function, sexual function, body image and general and specific symptoms. Decision-making was only assessed by one study, with satisfaction with decision-making reported to be high. There is an initial decline in QoL scores in the domains of physical function, role function, sexual function, body image and general health and symptoms deteriorating during the first 3-6 months post-operatively. Psychological function is the only QoL domain that remains stable throughout the post-operative period.

CONCLUSION

Mapping QoL trajectories provides a visual representation of post-operative progress, highlighting the enduring impact of pelvic exenteration on patients and can be used to inform pre-operative shared decision-making.

Designing and evaluating a patient decision aid for patients with locally advanced or locally recurrent rectal cancer: a national multicentre mixed methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 5%-10% of new rectal cancers are locally advanced (locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC)) at presentation with 4%-8% recurring (locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC)) after initial treatment. Patients with potentially curable disease have to consider many trade-offs when considering major exenterative surgery. There are no decision tools for these patients and current resources have found to not meet minimum international standards. The overall aim of this study is to produce a validated patient decision aid (PtDA) to assist patients considering radical pelvic exenteration for LARC and LRRC created in line with international minimum standards.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a national, multicentre mixed methods project and has been designed in keeping with guidance from the International Patient Decision Aids Standard.This study is in four stages. In stage 1, we will develop the PtDA and its content using agile developmental methodology. In stage 2, we will assess the content and face validity of the PtDA using mixed-methods with key stakeholders. In stage 3, we will assess the feasibility and efficacy of the PtDA. In stage 4, we will establish the barriers and facilitators to the use of a PtDA in the outpatient setting. Questionnaires including the QQ-10, EORTC PATSAT-C33, Preparation for Decision-Making Scale and the NoMAD survey will be analysed during the study. Interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Research ethics approval from North of Scotland Research Ethics Service 19/NS/0056 (IRAS 257890) has been granted. Results will be published in open access peer-reviewed journals, presented in conferences and distributed through bowel research UK charity. External endorsement will be sought from the International Patient Decision Standards Collaboration inventory of PtDAs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019122933.