Men's use of an Internet-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening

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.

An Adaptation, Extension and Pre-Testing of an Interactive Decision Aid for Men Diagnosed with Localized Prostate Cancer in Iceland: A Mixed-Method Study

In this study an interactive decision aid (DA) for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer was adapted, extended and pre-tested. The DA's prototype was based on a literature review and other empirically tested DAs. Semi-structured interviews with 12 men (age 65-80) diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were conducted to get feedback on content, usability, and the DA's layout. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and themes were identified using deductive and inductive coding. Participants found the accessibility of the information and the explicit values clarification tool helpful. Four themes were identified: (1) usability and design, (2) content and knowledge, (3) deciding factors of decision-making, and (4) social support. Participants valued receiving extensive and realistic information on surgery/radiation therapy side effects and getting unbiased presentations of treatment options. Following the thematic analysis, the DA was revised and tested in a survey among 11 newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients (age 60-74). The participants valued the DA and found it helpful when making a treatment decision, and all reported that they would recommend it to others making a prostate cancer treatment decision. The DA is currently being tested in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). This is the first DA developed for prostate cancer patients in Iceland and if the results of the RCT show that it is more effective than standard care in assisting newly diagnosed patients with their treatment decision, the DA can be easily translated and adapted to cultures similar to Iceland such as the Nordic countries.

Pelvic organ prolapse and treatment decisions- developing an online preference-sensitive tool to support shared decisions

Background

Female patients with pelvic organ prolapse and clinicians need to take decisions regarding treatment that are often unpredictable in relation to how they impact the future everyday lives of the patients.

This study formed the developmental phase of a larger study to develop and test an online tool to support shared decision-making.

Methods

Patients, health care professionals and other stakeholders participated in the development and evaluation process of this tool. The collected data was generated from observational studies, exploratory interviews with prompt cards and workshops with end users from four Danish gynecology outpatient clinics.

Results

Content analysis led to important themes. For the patients three themes emerged: 1) how the impact of symptoms on everyday life affected the need for relief, 2) their bodily perception and sex life and 3) their worries about the future. For clinicians the different symptoms and their severity was a main theme.

Conclusions

This article provides an overall description and discussion of the development methodology. It demonstrates how user involvement informed the prototyping process and how patients’ preferences were included in the final prototype. Whether the tool actually increases SDM, remains to be tested in a pilot feasibility study.

Dr. Answer AI for prostate cancer: Clinical outcome prediction model and service

Objectives

The importance of clinical outcome prediction models using artificial intelligence (AI) is being emphasized owing to the increasing necessity of developing a clinical decision support system (CDSS) employing AI. Therefore, in this study, we proposed a “Dr. Answer” AI software based on the clinical outcome prediction model for prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy.

Methods

The Dr. Answer AI was developed based on a clinical outcome prediction model, with a user-friendly interface. We used 7,128 clinical data of prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from three hospitals. An outcome prediction model was developed to calculate the probability of occurrence of 1) tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) staging, 2) extracapsular extension, 3) seminal vesicle invasion, and 4) lymph node metastasis. Random forest and k-nearest neighbors algorithms were used, and the proposed system was compared with previous algorithms.

Results

Random forest exhibited good performance for TNM staging (recall value: 76.98%), while k-nearest neighbors exhibited good performance for extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node metastasis (80.24%, 98.67%, and 95.45%, respectively). The Dr. Answer AI software consisted of three primary service structures: 1) patient information, 2) clinical outcome prediction, and outcomes according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline.

Conclusion

The proposed clinical outcome prediction model could function as an effective CDSS, supporting the decisions of the physicians, while enabling the patients to understand their treatment outcomes. The Dr. Answer AI software for prostate cancer helps the doctors to explain the treatment outcomes to the patients, allowing the patients to be more confident about their treatment plans.

Comparison of explicit values clarification method (VCM), implicit VCM and no VCM decision aids for men considering prostate cancer screening: protocol of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is considered a preference sensitive decision; meaning it does not only depend on what is best from a medical point of view, but also from a patient value standpoint. Decision aids are evidence-based tools which are shown to help people feel clearer about their values; therefore it has been advocated that decision aids should contain a specific values clarification method (VCM). VCMs may be either implicit or explicit, but the evidence concerning the best method is scarce. We aim to compare the perceived clarity of personal values in men considering PSA screening using decision aids with no VCM versus an implicit VCM versus an explicit VCM.

METHODS

Male factory employees from an industrial facility in the Northern region of Portugal aged 50 to 69 years old will be randomly assigned to one of three decision aid groups used to support prostate cancer screening decisions: (i) decision aid with information only (control), (ii) decision aid with information plus an implicit VCM, (iii) decision aid with information plus an explicit VCM. Men will be allowed release time from work to attend a session at their workplace. After a brief oral presentation, those willing to participate in the study will fill the baseline questionnaire, plus a 5 point-Likert scale question about intentions to undergo screening, and will then receive the intervention materials to complete. We estimated a total sample size of 276 participants; with 92 in each group. The primary outcome will be the perceived clarity of personal values assessed by the Portuguese validated translation of the three subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes will be intention to be screened (before and after the intervention), the total score from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the self-report of having or not undergone screening at 6 months.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the body of evidence on the role of decision aids to support health preference-sensitive choices and provide further insight on the impact of different methods for eliciting people's values embedded within a decision aid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03988673 - clinicalTrials.gov (2019/06/17).

Translation and cultural adaptation of a prostate cancer screening decision aid: a qualitative study in Portugal

OBJECTIVES

To translate and culturally adapt an English language patient decision aid addressing prostate cancer screening, so it can be used by Portuguese men.

DESIGN

Qualitative study. We followed the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control's (ECDC) five-step, stakeholder-based approach to adapting health communication materials: (1) selection of materials and process coordinators, (2) early review, (3) translation and back translation, (4) comprehension testing with cognitive semi-structured interviews and (5) proofreading. Content analysis was performed using Ligre software.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cognitive interviews with 15 men to refine a decision aid after its translation. Eligible participants were Portuguese native-speaking men aged 55-69 years old recruited from the local community (urban and suburban) of Oporto district through advertisements in social media and senior universities between January and March 2019. A previous diagnosis of prostate cancer was the single exclusion criterion.

RESULTS

Five main themes are presented: informational content, information comprehension, sociocultural appropriateness, feelings and main message and personal perspective concerning prostate cancer screening. Most men found the translated version of the decision aid to be clear, comprehensive and appropriate for its target population, although some suggested that medical terms could be a barrier. The data collected from men's interviews afforded the researchers the opportunity to clarify concepts and expand existing content.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision aid was successfully translated and adapted to the Portuguese cultural setting. Our ECDC based approach can be replicated by other workgroups to translate and culturally adapt decision aids.

Translation and cultural adaptation of the web and printed versions of a decision aid to support men's prostate cancer screening choice: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is one of the most frequent cancers among men. However, screening for prostate cancer carries many risks and a small benefit. Thus, based on the available evidence, most medical organisations advocate a shared decision-making process, in which decision aids may play an important role. Nevertheless, to date there is no such instrument to be used by Portuguese men. Our goal is to translate and perform the cultural adaptation of an English language prostate cancer screening decision aid called 'Making the best choice', in web and printed formats, which has been developed and tested by a workgroup from Georgetown University (USA).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Culturally and technically inappropriate recommendations in the original decision aid will be reviewed by the process coordinator and a linguistic expert. Two forward translations from English to Portuguese will be done, followed by a back-translation and an independent expert review. We will further improve the decision aid through an iterative process of data collection, data analysis and decision aid review. Individual semistructured cognitive interviews will be conducted and audiotaped with 55-69-year-old men recruited from the local community (urban and suburban) of Oporto district. We plan a total sample size of 30 participants (15 interviews per format). All participants will receive written information about the study and will sign individual consent forms. After verbatim transcription of the audiofiles, a thematic categorical analysis will be conducted using Ligre Software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Health Ethics Committee from Centro Hospitalar de São João/Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto. Results from this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and the Portuguese decision aid will available to Portuguese men.

Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the computer-based prostate Cancer screening decision aid acceptance scale for African-American men

BACKGROUND

To reliably evaluate the acceptance and use of computer-based prostate cancer decision aids (CBDAs) for African-American men, culturally relevant measures are needed. This study describes the development and initial psychometric evaluation of the 24-item Computer-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid Acceptance Scale among 357 African-American men.

METHODS

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with maximum likelihood estimation and polychoric correlations followed by Promax and Varimax rotations.

RESULTS

EFA yielded three factors: Technology Use Expectancy and Intention (16 items), Technology Use Anxiety (5 items), and Technology Use Self-Efficacy (3 items) with good to excellent internal consistency reliability at .95, .90, and .85, respectively. The standardized root mean square residual (0.035) indicated the factor structure explained most of the correlations.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest the three-factor, 24-item Computer-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid Acceptance Scale has utility in determining the acceptance and use of CBDAs among African-American men at risk for prostate cancer. Future research is needed to confirm this factor structure among socio-demographically diverse African-Americans.

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.

Assessing Preference Shift and Effects on Patient Knowledge and Decisional Conflict: Cross-Sectional Study of an Interactive Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Patient Decision Aid

Background

Randomized trials of Web-based decision aids for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing indicate that these interventions improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. However, we do not know about these tools’ impact on people who spontaneously use a PSA testing patient decision aid on the internet.

Objective

The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the impact of the Web-based PSA Option Grid patient decision aid on preference shift, knowledge, and decisional conflict; (2) identify which frequently asked questions (FAQs) are associated with preference shift; and (3) explore the possible relationships between these outcomes.

Methods

Data were collected between January 1, 2016, and December 30, 2017. Users who accessed the Web-based, interactive PSA Option Grid were provided with 3 options: have a PSA test, no PSA test, or unsure. Users first declared their initial preference and then completed 5 knowledge questions and a 4-item (yes or no) validated decisional conflict scale (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, Encouragement; SURE). Next, users were presented with 10 FAQs and asked to identify their preference for each question based on the information provided. At the end, users declared their final preference and completed the same knowledge and decisional conflict questions. Paired sample t tests were employed to compare before and after knowledge and decisional conflict scores. A multinomial regression analysis was performed to determine which FAQs were associated with a shift in screening preference.

Results

Of all the people who accessed the PSA Option Grid, 39.8% (186/467) completed the interactive journey and associated surveys. After excluding 22 female users, we analyzed 164 responses. At completion, users shifted their preference to “not having the PSA test” (43/164, 26.2%, vs 117/164, 71.3%; P<.001), had higher levels of knowledge (112/164, 68.3%, vs 146/164, 89.0%; P<.001), and lower decisional conflict (94/164, 57.3%, vs 18/164, 11.0%; P<.001). There were 3 FAQs associated with preference shift: “What does the test involve?” “If my PSA level is high, what are the chances that I have prostate cancer?” and “What are the risks?” We did not find any relationship between knowledge, decisional conflict, and preference shift.

Conclusions

Unprompted use of the interactive PSA Option Grid leads to preference shift, increased knowledge, and reduced decisional conflict, which confirms the ability of these tools to influence decision making, even when used outside clinical encounters.

Electronically Verified Use of Internet-Based, Multimedia Decision Aids by Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes and Their Caregivers

Decision aids (DAs) are central to shared decision making (SDM) interventions, yet little is known about patients' actual DA use. Adequate utilization of DAs could optimize SDM effectiveness. Electronic DAs enable more objective tracking and analysis of actual DA utilization than do paper DAs. This report is part of an ongoing randomized controlled SDM trial enrolling adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers (n = 153) who were considering use of an insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor. Extensive stakeholder engagement guided creation of two online DAs. After completing baseline measures, 133 dyads were randomized to SDM (access to the pertinent DA) or Usual Care (clinic routines for preparing candidates for adopting these devices). Utilization data showed that 80% of caregivers and 66% of youths logged into a DA at least once; youths and caregivers, respectively, dedicated a mean of 44.7 and 55.0 minutes to website use and viewed 72.2% and 77.4% of the DA content. Median total duration from enrollment to last DA logout was 48.2 days for adolescents and 45.6 days for caregivers. Bivariate comparisons showed that non-Hispanic, Caucasian females from households with higher socioeconomic status were significantly more likely to login to the assigned DA at least once. Hierarchical multiple regression showed that adolescent males with lower levels of health literacy demonstrated fewer DA logins (F = 2.59; P < 0.009), but identified no significant predictors of adolescents' or caregiver' duration of DA use or proportion of DA content viewed. Future SDM trials should seek to promote DA use, especially by non-White adolescents, perhaps with direct assistance with the initial DA login. Trials employing electronic DAs should routinely report and analyze utilization data.

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.

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.

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 ).

Digital Solutions for Informed Decision Making: An Academic-Community Partnership for the Development of a Prostate Cancer Decision Aid for African American Men

African American (AA) men are significantly more likely to die of prostate cancer (PrCA) than other racial groups, and there is a critical need to identify strategies for providing information about PrCA screening and the importance of informed decision making (IDM). To assess whether a computer-based IDM intervention for PrCA screening would be appropriate for AA men, this formative evaluation study examined their (1) PrCA risk and screening knowledge; (2) decision-making processes for PrCA screening; (3) usage of, attitudes toward, and access to interactive communication technologies (ICTs); and (4) perceptions regarding a future, novel, computer-based PrCA education intervention. A purposive convenience sample of 39 AA men aged 37 to 66 years in the Southeastern United States was recruited through faith-based organizations to participate in one of six 90-minute focus groups and complete a 45-item descriptive survey. Participants were generally knowledgeable about PrCA. However, few engaged in IDM with their doctor and few were informed about the associated risks and uncertainties of PrCA screening. Most participants used ICTs on a daily basis for various purposes including health information seeking. Most participants were open to a novel, computer-based intervention if the system was easy to use and its animated avatars were culturally appropriate. Because study participants had low exposure to IDM for PrCA, but frequently used ICTs, IDM interventions using ICTs (e.g., computers) hold promise for AA men and should be explored for feasibility and effectiveness. These interventions should aim to increase PrCA screening knowledge and stress the importance of participating in IDM with doctors.

Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening

Informed decision-making tools are recommended for men considering prostate cancer screening. We evaluated the extent to which use of an interactive, web-based decision aid was associated with decisional and screening outcomes. Participants (N = 253) were 57 (7.0) years old and completed telephone interviews at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months post-baseline. Tracking software captured minutes spent on the website (median = 33.9), sections viewed (median = 4.0/5.0), testimonials viewed (median = 4.0/6.0), and values clarification tool (VCT) use (77.3 %). In multivariable analyses, all four website use variables were positively associated with increased knowledge (p's < 0.05). Complete VCT use and number of informational sections were positively associated with greater decisional satisfaction (p's < 0.05). Decisional conflict and screening behavior were not associated with measures of website use. Increased use of informational content and interactive elements were related to improved knowledge and satisfaction. Methods to increase utilization of interactive website components may improve informed decision-making outcomes.

An Iterative Process for Developing and Evaluating a Computer-Based Prostate Cancer Decision Aid for African American Men

BACKGROUND

The disproportionate burden of prostate cancer (PrCA) among African American (AA) men amplifies the need for informed decisions about PrCA screening. To create a computer-based decision aid (CBDA) for increasing prostate knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and intention to make an informed decision, the study implemented an iterative approach to develop a culturally appropriate CBDA.

METHOD

A short CBDA prototype containing PrCA information and interactive activities was developed. A sample of 21 AA men aged 37 to 66 years in South Carolina participated in one of seven 90-minute focus groups and completed a 36-item survey. Updates were made to the CBDA based on participant feedback. The CBDA and heuristic evaluation surveys were then distributed to six expert reviewers. Ten men were also randomly selected from our sample population to participate in interviews regarding usability of the CBDA.

RESULTS

Participants and expert reviewers expressed consensus on many features of the CBDA, but some suggested changes to the format and graphics in order to enhance the CBDA's effectiveness. Development and evaluation processes and implications are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Using CBDAs for informed decision making may be appropriate for AA men. It is important to engage the community and experts in an iterative development process to ensure that a CBDA is relevant for priority populations.

A comparison of web-based versus print-based decision AIDS for prostate cancer screening: participants' evaluation and utilization

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids facilitate informed decision making for medical tests and procedures that have uncertain benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To describe participants' evaluation and utilization of print-based and web-based prostate cancer screening decision aids that were found to improve decisional outcomes in a prior randomized controlled trial.

DESIGN

Men completed brief telephone interviews at baseline, one month, and 13 months post-randomization.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were primary care patients, 45-70 years old, who received the print-based (N = 628) or web-based decision aid (N = 625) and completed the follow-up assessments.

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed men's baseline preference for web-based or print-based materials, time spent using the decision aids, comprehension of the overall message, and ratings of the content.

KEY RESULTS

Decision aid use was self-reported by 64.3 % (web) and 81.8 % (print) of participants. Significant predictors of decision aid use were race (white vs. non-white, OR = 2.43, 95 % CI: 1.77, 3.35), higher education (OR = 1.68, 95 % CI: 1.06, 2.70) and trial arm (print vs. web, OR = 2.78, 95 % CI: 2.03, 3.83). Multivariable analyses indicated that web-arm participants were more likely to use the website when they preferred web-based materials (OR: 1.91, CI: 1.17, 3.12), whereas use of the print materials was not significantly impacted by a preference for print-based materials (OR: 0.69, CI: 0.38, 1.25). Comprehension of the decision aid message (i.e., screening is an individual decision) did not significantly differ between arms in adjusted analyses (print: 61.9 % and web: 68.2 %, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid use was independently influenced by race, education, and the decision aid medium, findings consistent with the 'digital divide.' These results suggest that when it is not possible to provide this age cohort with their preferred decision aid medium, print materials will be more highly used than web-based materials. Although there are many advantages to web-based decision aids, providing an option for print-based decision aids should be considered.

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.

Internet use frequency and patient-centered care: measuring patient preferences for participation using the health information wants questionnaire

Background

The Internet is bringing fundamental changes to medical practice through improved access to health information and participation in decision making. However, patient preferences for participation in health care vary greatly. Promoting patient-centered health care requires an understanding of the relationship between Internet use and a broader range of preferences for participation than previously measured.

Objective

To explore (1) whether there is a significant relationship between Internet use frequency and patients’ overall preferences for obtaining health information and decision-making autonomy, and (2) whether the relationships between Internet use frequency and information and decision-making preferences differ with respect to different aspects of health conditions.

Methods

The Health Information Wants Questionnaire (HIWQ) was administered to gather data about patients’ preferences for the (1) amount of information desired about different aspects of a health condition, and (2) level of decision-making autonomy desired across those same aspects.

Results

The study sample included 438 individuals: 226 undergraduates (mean age 20; SD 2.15) and 212 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 72; SD 9.00). A significant difference was found between the younger and older age groups’ Internet use frequencies, with the younger age group having significantly more frequent Internet use than the older age group (younger age group mean 5.98, SD 0.33; older age group mean 3.50, SD 2.00; t₄₃₆=17.42, P<.01). Internet use frequency was positively related to the overall preference rating (γ=.15, P<.05), suggesting that frequent Internet users preferred significantly more information and decision making than infrequent Internet users. The relationships between Internet use frequency and different types of preferences varied: compared with infrequent Internet users, frequent Internet users preferred more information but less decision making for diagnosis (γ=.57, P<.01); more information and more decision-making autonomy for laboratory test (γ=.15, P<.05), complementary and alternative medicine (γ=.32, P<.01), and self-care (γ=.15, P<.05); and less information but more decision-making autonomy for the psychosocial (γ=-.51, P<.01) and health care provider (γ=-.27, P<.05) aspects. No significant difference was found between frequent and infrequent Internet users in their preferences for treatment information and decision making.

Conclusions

Internet use frequency has a positive relationship with the overall preferences for obtaining health information and decision-making autonomy, but its relationship with different types of preferences varies. These findings have important implications for medical practice.