Comparing a generic and individualized information decision support intervention for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer

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.

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.

RESULTS

Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effectiveness of Decision Aid in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial at Tertiary Referral Hospitals in an Asia Pacific Country

There are several treatment options for localized prostate cancer with very similar outcome but vary in terms of technique and side effect profiles and risks. Considering the potential difficulty in choosing the best treatment, a patient decision aid (PDA) is used to help patients in their decision-making process. However, the use and applicability of PDA in a country in Asia Pacific region like Malaysia is still unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a PDA modified to the local context in improving patients' knowledge, decisional conflict, and preparation for decision making among men with localized prostate cancer. Sixty patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to control and intervention groups. A self-administered questionnaire, which evaluate the knowledge on prostate cancer (23 items), decisional conflict (10 items) and preparation for decision-making (10 items), was given to all participants at pre- and post-intervention. Data were analyzed using independent T test and paired T test. The intervention group showed significant improvement in knowledge (p = 0.02) and decisional conflict (p = 0.01) from baseline. However, when compared between the control and intervention groups, there were no significant differences at baseline and post-intervention on knowledge, decisional conflict and preparation for decision-making. A PDA on treatment options of localized prostate cancer modified to the local context in an Asia Pacific country improved patients' knowledge and decisional conflict but did not have significant impact on the preparation for decision-making. The study was also registered under the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12614000668606 registered on 25/06/2014.

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.

Differences in treatment choices between prostate cancer patients using a decision aid and patients receiving care as usual: results from a randomized controlled trial

Objective

To determine whether or not decision aid (DA) use influences treatment decisions in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PC).

Patients and methods

In a cluster randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized to either DA use (DA group) or no DA use (control group). Between 2014 and 2016, newly diagnosed patients with low or intermediate risk PC were recruited in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands. DA users had access to a web-based DA that provided general PC information, PC-treatment information, and values clarification exercises to elicit personal preferences towards the treatment options. Control group patients received care as usual. Differences in treatment choice were analysed using multilevel logistic regressions. Differences in eligible treatment options between groups were compared using Pearson Chi-square tests.

Results

Informed consent was given by 382 patients (DA group N = 273, control group N = 109). Questionnaire response rate was 88% (N = 336). Active surveillance (AS) was an option for 38%, radical prostatectomy (RP) for 98%, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for 88%, and brachytherapy (BT) for 79% of patients. DA users received AS significantly more often than control group. Patients (29 vs 16%, p = 0.01), whereas the latter more often chose BT (29 vs 18%, p < 0.01). No differences were found between groups regarding RP and EBRT. DA users who were not eligible for AS, received surgery more often compared to the control group (53 vs 35%, p = 0.01). Patient and disease characteristics were evenly distributed between groups.

Conclusion

DA-using PC patients chose the AS treatment option more often than non-DA-using patients did.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-021-03782-7.

"Shared Decision Making Assistant": A Smartphone Application to Meet the Decision-Making Needs of Patients With Primary Liver Cancer

The development of medical technology provides medical specialists with a variety of choices for their primary liver cancer patients, including partial liver resection, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, liver transplantation, and so on. However, in this context, because patients with primary liver cancer frequently do not receive adequate information to help make complicated medical decisions, those patients, who are usually otherwise ignorant about their disease, are facing multiple difficult choices. The problem might be alleviated with a process called "shared decision making." Accordingly, researchers developed a smartphone application named "Shared Decision Making Assistant" for primary liver cancer patients in China, and in this article, we report the process of its development. First, individual interviews were conducted to identify the specific needs and status of primary liver cancer patients participating in shared decision making. Next, expert group discussions were held among primary liver cancer medical experts, nurses, and software engineers, using a decision-making process called the Delphi method, which was used to arrive at a group opinion or decision by surveying a panel of experts, to draft the framework and decide on the contents of the mobile health-based decision aids program. Feedbacks and suggestions were collected to optimize the workflow of "Shared Decision Making Assistant." The resulting application consisted of seven modules: personal information, primary liver cancer treatment knowledge center, decision aids path, continuing care, interactive platform, health education, and backstage management.

Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer

Background

While many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DAs affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient–provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a complex medical oriented DA compared to a more simplistic decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Methods

1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a simple or complex DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and who completed a baseline survey. Survey measures: baseline (biopsy); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (pre- encounter); one week following the physician visit (post-encounter). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients’ use and satisfaction with the DA.

Results

Participants who received the simple DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p = 0.03), found the DA more helpful (p’s < 0.01) and were more likely to be considering watchful waiting (p = 0.03) compared to those receiving the complex DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received.

Conclusions

The simple DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients’ treatment preferences.

Trial registration This trial was pre-registered prior to recruitment of participants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01505-x.

Strategies for implementing shared decision making in elective surgery by health care practitioners: A systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To summarize relevant international scientific evidence on strategies aimed at facilitating or improving health care practitioners' adoption of shared decision making in elective surgery. The review evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies and described the characteristics of identified strategies.

METHOD

A systematic search of the literature was conducted up to March 2019. The review included interventions that targeted patients, health care practitioners, or health systems/organizations. Main outcomes were measures of decision process and decision outcomes. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, assessed methodological quality and extracted data.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trials, one pseudo-randomized controlled trial, and four quasi-experimental studies were included in this review. The heterogeneity of interventions and the variability of outcomes used to measure the impact of these interventions precluded meta-analysis. All of the interventions included an educational component regarding the medical condition of interest and available treatment options and a supportive component to encourage patients to ask questions and involve themselves in the decision making. Published evidence on shared decision-making interventions in elective surgery is most prevalent in the breast cancer/endocrine and urology specialties, with most studies targeting their shared decision-making interventions at the patient population. The use of multiple media components within an intervention including interactive video appeared to improve patient satisfaction with the shared decision-making process.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of well-developed educational information provided through interactive multimedia, computer or DVD based, may enhance the decision-making process. The evidence suggests that such multimedia can be used prior to the surgical consultation, presenting medical and surgical information relevant to the upcoming consultation. A decision and communication aid also appears to be an effective method to support the surgeon in patient participation and involvement in the decision-making process.

Comprehensive overview of computer-based health information tailoring: a systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To explore the scope of the published literature on computer-tailoring, considering both the development and the evaluation aspects, with the aim of identifying and categorising main approaches and detecting research gaps, tendencies and trends.

SETTING

Original researches from any country and healthcare setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients or health consumers with any health condition regardless of their specific characteristics.

METHOD

A systematic scoping review was undertaken based on the York's five-stage framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. Five leading databases were searched: PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, EBSCO and IEEE for articles published between 1990 and 2017. Tailoring concept was investigated for three aspects: system design, information delivery and evaluation. Both quantitative (ie, frequencies) and qualitative (ie, theme analysis) methods have been used to synthesis the data.

RESULTS

After reviewing 1320 studies, 360 articles were identified for inclusion. Two main routes were identified in tailoring literature including public health research (64%) and computer science research (17%). The most common facets used for tailoring were sociodemographic (73 %), target behaviour status (59%) and psycho-behavioural determinants (56%), respectively. The analysis showed that only 13% of the studies described the tailoring algorithm they used, from which two approaches revealed: information retrieval (12%) and natural language generation (1%). The systematic mapping of the delivery channel indicated that nearly half of the articles used the web (57%) to deliver the tailored information; printout (19%) and email (10%) came next. Analysis of the evaluation approaches showed that nearly half of the articles (53%) used an outcome-based approach, 44% used process evaluation and 3% assessed cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review can inform researchers to identify the methodological approaches of computer tailoring. Improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on tailoring methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is a need for a guideline to standardise reporting.

Shared decision making for men facing prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Aims: To synthesize the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) compared to usual care for prostate cancer (PC) treatment. Methods and results: A systematic review of academic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, PsychINFO, and Scopus) and grey (clinicaltrials.gov, WHO trial search, meta-Register ISRCTN, Google Scholar, opengrey, and ohri.ca) literature, also identified from contacting authors and hand-searching bibliographies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs): 1) comparing SDM to usual care for decisions about PC treatment, 2) conducted in primary or specialized care, 3) fulfilling the key SDM features, and 4) reporting quantitative outcome data. Four RCTs from Canada (n=3) and the USA were included and comprised 1,065 randomized men, most (89.8%) of whom were in PC stage T1-T2. The studies reported 24 outcome measures. In 62.5% study estimates, SDM was similar to usual care at improving patient satisfaction and mood, and at reducing decisional conflict and decisional regret. In 37.5% study estimates, SDM significantly improved knowledge, perception of being informed and patient-perceived quality of life (QoL) at four weeks. There was a dearth of outcome data, particularly on the adherence to treatment and on patient-important and clinically relevant health outcomes such as symptoms and mortality. Conclusion: SDM may positively influence men's knowledge and may have a positive but short-term effect on patient-perceived QoL. The (long-term) effects of SDM on patient-related outcomes for decisions about PC treatment are unclear. Future research needs consensus about the interventions and outcomes needed to evaluate SDM and should address the absence of evidence on health outcomes.

The impact of the use of video-based educational interventions on patient outcomes in hospital settings: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the literature on the impact of video-based educational interventions on patient outcomes in inpatient settings as compared to standard education techniques.

METHODS

This review followed a scoping review methodology. English language articles were searched in Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases. Inclusion criteria were: use of video-based educational interventions, and inpatient hospital settings. Abstracts were reviewed and selected according to predetermined criteria, followed by full-text scrutiny.

RESULTS

Sixty-two empirical studies were identified, with 38 (61%) reporting a significant positive effect of video-based educational interventions on patient outcomes, compared to control groups (i.e., standard education). Three different types of video-based educational intervention formats were identified: animated presentations, professionals in practice, and patient narratives. Outcome types included: knowledge-based, clinical, emotional, and behavioral, with knowledge-based most prevalent.

CONCLUSION

Video-based educational interventions are common in the hospital setting. These interventions are effective at improving short-term health literacy goals, but their impact on behavior or lifestyle modifications is unclear. Their effectiveness also depends on presentation format, timing, and the patient's emotional well-being.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Video-based educational delivery is effective for improving short-term health literacy, however a combination of approaches delivered over an extended period of time may support improving longer-term health outcomes.

Factors underlying treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer in the U.S. and Canada: A scoping review using principal component analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research is to gather, collate, and identify key factors commonly studied in localized prostate cancer (LPC) treatment decision-making in Canada and the U.S.

METHODS

This scoping review uses five databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycInfo) to identify relevant articles using a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria applied by two reviewers. A list of topics describing the themes of the articles was extracted and key factors were identified using principal component analysis (PCA). A word cloud of titles and abstracts of the relevant articles was created to identify complementary results to the PCA.

RESULTS

This review identified 77 relevant articles describing 32 topics related to LPC treatment decision-making. The PCA grouped these 32 topics into five key factors commonly studied in LPC treatment decision-making: 1) treatment type; 2) socioeconomic/demographic characteristics; 3) personal reasons for treatment choice; 4) psychology of treatment decision experience; and 5) level of involvement in the decision-making process. The word cloud identified common phrases that were complementary to the factors identified through the PCA.

CONCLUSIONS

This research identifies several possible factors impacting LPC treatment decision-making. Further research needs to be completed to determine the impact that these factors have in the LPC treatment decision-making experience.

Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Systematic Review of Decision Aids for the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

A broader range of decisional tools should be investigated. This paper will update the decisional outcome data and assess the features of decisional tool. Literature search strictly followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Articles that cited Lin et al and Violette et al were searched. Features of decisional tools were analyzed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument criteria. The scores of the 31 decisional tools ranged from 6 to 15, which did not correlate proportionally with the positive decisional outcomes. Personal importance appeared to be a significant component. Multidisciplinary clinics are superior in improving decisional outcomes as they promote more at shared decision making.

A standardized analysis of the current surgical and non-surgical treatment selection process for men with localized prostate cancer

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to treat localized prostate cancer has increased in popularity, although other options exist, including radiotherapy and active surveillance. The decision about choosing the right treatment has become pertinent for many patients. This literature review aimed to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding decisional aids and the associated decisional outcomes for the purpose of designing a method for both patients and doctors to use to make the best treatment decision for the patient. A literature search was conducted via MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the keywords "prostate" and "cancer" and "impact" and "decisio*" and "treatment." Articles were included that focused on treatment outcomes, decision-making processes, and the use of decisional aids for localized prostate cancer. Articles that investigated prostate cancer in general or prostate cancer screening were excluded, as were articles that were not written in English. Altogether, 13 articles were finally critically reviewed for this study. Results were conflicting regarding the relations between patient factors, use of decisional aids, and decisional outcomes. There was a large gap in the literature regarding the optimal decision-making process for men with localized prostate cancer. The role of currently available decisional aids is limited to helping patients make the right decisions. There is a need to develop a novel decisional aid in which patient-physician discussion-involving evaluation of a spectrum of patient-, doctor-, and treatment-related factors-is included.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making and Patient Decision Aids in Radiation Oncology

Cancer treatment decisions are complex and may be challenging for patients, as multiple treatment options can often be reasonably considered. As a result, decisional support tools have been developed to assist patients in the decision-making process. A commonly used intervention to facilitate shared decision-making is a decision aid, which provides evidence-based outcomes information and guides patients towards choosing the treatment option that best aligns with their preferences and values. To ensure high quality, systematic frameworks and standards have been proposed for the development of an optimal aid for decision making. Studies have examined the impact of these tools on facilitating treatment decisions and improving decision-related outcomes. In radiation oncology, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that decision aids have the potential to improve patient outcomes, including increased knowledge about treatment options and decreased decisional conflict with decision-making. This article provides an overview of the shared-decision making process and summarizes the development, validation, and implementation of decision aids as patient educational tools in radiation oncology. Finally, this article reviews the findings from decision aid studies in radiation oncology and offers various strategies to effectively implement shared decision-making into clinical practice.

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.

Physicians' perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients

Despite the evidence indicating that decision aids (DA) improve informed treatment decision making for prostate cancer (PCa), physicians do not routinely recommend DAs to their patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with urologists (n = 11), radiation oncologists (n = 12) and primary care physicians (n = 10) about their methods of educating low-risk PCa patients regarding the treatment decision, their concerns about recommending DAs, and the essential content and format considerations that need to be addressed. Physicians stressed the need for providing comprehensive patient education before the treatment decision is made and expressed concern about the current unevaluated information available on the Internet. They made recommendations for a DA that is brief, applicable to diverse populations, and that fully discloses all treatment options (including active surveillance) and their potential side effects. Echoing previous studies showing that low-risk PCa patients are making rapid and potentially uninformed treatment decisions, these results highlight the importance of providing patient education early in the decision-making process. This need may be fulfilled by a treatment DA, should physicians systematically recommend DAs to their patients. Physicians' recommendations for the inclusion of particular content and presentation methods will be important for designing a high quality DA that will be used in clinical practice.

Patient and family communication during consultation visits: The effects of a decision aid for treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effects of a decision aid on improving patients' and family members' information giving and question asking during consultations for prostate cancer treatment decision-making.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis of archived audio-recorded real-time consultation visits with participants from a randomized clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned into three groups: TD-intervention targeted patient-only; TS-intervention targeted patients and family members; and control-a handout on staying healthy during treatment. We conducted content analysis using a researcher-developed communication coding system. Using SAS 9.3, we conducted Chi-square/Fisher's exact test to examine whether information giving and question asking among patients and family members varied by groups when discussing different content/topics.

RESULTS

Compared with those in the TS and control groups, significantly higher percentages of participants in the TD group demonstrated information giving in discussing topics about diagnosis, treatment options, risks and benefits, and preferences; and engaged in question asking when discussing diagnosis, watchful waiting/active surveillance, risks and benefits, and preferences for treatment impacts.

CONCLUSION

Information support and communication skills training for patients were effective in improving communication during treatment decision-making consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Providing information about prostate cancer and communication skills training empower patients and their family members.

Cancer Patients' Perceptions of the Barriers and Facilitators to Patient Participation in Symptom Management During an Episode of Admission

BACKGROUND

Symptoms by definition are subjective, and patients' role in their assessment and management will impact on patient outcomes; thus, symptom management is an area of acute care practice where facilitation of patient participation is vital if quality outcomes are to be achieved.

OBJECTIVE

This study originated from a large multimethod research program exploring patient participation in symptom management in an acute oncology setting. The purpose of this article is to explore patients' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to participating in their symptom management during an episode of admission to an acute oncology ward and the relationships between these perceptions and patients' preference for participation.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-one cancer inpatients consented and completed an interview-administered questionnaire. Patients' preference for participation was measured using the Control Preference Scale. Responses to open-ended survey questions were evaluated using content analysis.

RESULTS

Ten categories were identified in the analyses of patient perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to participating in care decisions relating to their symptoms. Patients, irrespective of their Control Preference, reported multiple barriers and facilitators to participating in their symptom management.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients overall perceived information as the most critical component of participation. Irrespective of patients' preference for participation, there were similarities in the barriers and facilitators to the operationalization of participation in the acute care setting reported.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Understanding patient perceptions of barriers and facilitators of participating in symptom management has provided important insights into person and system factors in the acute care sector impacting quality patient symptom outcomes.

Integrating Patient Preference into Treatment Decisions for Men with Prostate Cancer at the Point of Care

PURPOSE

Men with clinically localized prostate cancer face an archetypal "preference sensitive" treatment decision. A shared decision making process incorporating patient values and preferences is paramount. We evaluated the benefit of a novel decision making application, and investigated associations between patient preferences and treatment choice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a novel, web based application that provides education, preference measurement and personalized decision analysis for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Preferences are measured using conjoint analysis. The application ranks treatment options according to their "fit" (expected value) based on clinical factors and personal preferences, and serves as the basis for shared decision making during the consultation. We administered the decisional conflict scale before and after completion of the application. Additionally, we compared post-visit perceptions of shared decision making between a baseline "usual care" cohort and a cohort seen after the application was integrated into clinical practice.

RESULTS

A total of 109 men completed the application before their consultation, and had decisional conflict measured before and after use. Overall decisional conflict decreased by 37% (p <0.0001). Analysis of the decisional conflict subscales revealed statistically significant improvements in all 5 domains. Patients completing the decision making application (33) felt more included in (88% vs 57%, p=0.01) and jointly responsible for (94% vs 52%, p <0.0001) the decision about further treatment compared to those receiving usual care (24). More patients who completed the application strongly agreed that different treatment options were discussed (94% vs 74%, p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of this web based intervention was associated with decreased decisional conflict and enhanced elements of shared decision making.

Perception and satisfaction with the information received during the medical care process in patients with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess the perception and degree of satisfaction of Spanish patients with prostate cancer (PC) concerning the information received during the medical care process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed information on the perception of the medical care process of 591 patients with PC who attended a consultation. We also studied their degree of participation in decision making and the association between perceived satisfaction and the demographic and clinical variables, both of patients and specialists.

RESULTS

Some 90.2% of the patients stated that they had received, mainly from the urologist, an appropriate amount of information about the disease. More than 80% of the patients were satisfied with the information received at the time of diagnosis. Some 70.3% of the patients stated that they better accepted the disease thanks to the information provided, and 60.5% believed that they had a better ability to resolve problems. Some 90.4% of the patients considered that the time provided by the specialist was appropriate. Some 62.5% of the patients participated in making decisions about their disease and treatment. Age (both of the patient and specialist), the extent of the disease, the time dedicated by the specialist and the type of centre were factors that had a significant association (P<.05) with the satisfaction achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

The perception and degree of satisfaction that Spanish patients with PC have of the information received during the medical care process is good and is paralleled by a high degree of active participation in the therapeutic decision making process.

Features of Computer-Based Decision Aids: Systematic Review, Thematic Synthesis, and Meta-Analyses

Background

Patient information and education, such as decision aids, are gradually moving toward online, computer-based environments. Considerable research has been conducted to guide content and presentation of decision aids. However, given the relatively new shift to computer-based support, little attention has been given to how multimedia and interactivity can improve upon paper-based decision aids.

Objective

The first objective of this review was to summarize published literature into a proposed classification of features that have been integrated into computer-based decision aids. Building on this classification, the second objective was to assess whether integration of specific features was associated with higher-quality decision making.

Methods

Relevant studies were located by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. The review identified studies that evaluated computer-based decision aids for adults faced with preference-sensitive medical decisions and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. A thematic synthesis was conducted to develop the classification of features. Subsequently, meta-analyses were conducted based on standardized mean differences (SMD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported knowledge or decisional conflict. Further subgroup analyses compared pooled SMDs for decision aids that incorporated a specific feature to other computer-based decision aids that did not incorporate the feature, to assess whether specific features improved quality of decision making.

Results

Of 3541 unique publications, 58 studies met the target criteria and were included in the thematic synthesis. The synthesis identified six features: content control, tailoring, patient narratives, explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support. A subset of 26 RCTs from the thematic synthesis was used to conduct the meta-analyses. As expected, computer-based decision aids performed better than usual care or alternative aids; however, some features performed better than others. Integration of content control improved quality of decision making (SMD 0.59 vs 0.23 for knowledge; SMD 0.39 vs 0.29 for decisional conflict). In contrast, tailoring reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.40 vs 0.71 for knowledge; SMD 0.25 vs 0.52 for decisional conflict). Similarly, patient narratives also reduced quality of decision making (SMD 0.43 vs 0.65 for knowledge; SMD 0.17 vs 0.46 for decisional conflict). Results were varied for different types of explicit values clarification, feedback, and social support.

Conclusions

Integration of media rich or interactive features into computer-based decision aids can improve quality of preference-sensitive decision making. However, this is an emerging field with limited evidence to guide use. The systematic review and thematic synthesis identified features that have been integrated into available computer-based decision aids, in an effort to facilitate reporting of these features and to promote integration of such features into decision aids. The meta-analyses and associated subgroup analyses provide preliminary evidence to support integration of specific features into future decision aids. Further research can focus on clarifying independent contributions of specific features through experimental designs and refining the designs of features to improve effectiveness.

Treatment Decision Making in Patients with Bladder Cancer

Background: Each stage of bladder cancer involves varying treatment issues and concerns that are discussed between patients and providers during the pre-treatment consultation. There is no documentation of how patients engage in decision making.

Objective: To describe aspects of treatment decision making perceived by patients with bladder cancer using qualitative analysis of data from individual interviews.

Methods: Patients with any stage bladder cancer were recruited from urology and medical oncology services at a comprehensive cancer center. A qualitative approach to data collection and analysis was applied. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed. Coding of the transcripts was conducted by research team members, discussed for consensus and major themes derived.

Results: 45 men and 15 women, the majority college educated, were recruited. Where to receive care, including from whom, was the initial and major decision. Challenges of decisions regarding urinary reconstruction were dominant. Personal characteristics, including age and being active, were considered. Participants with early stage tumors (n = 28) typically perceived only one treatment option and followed the physician’s recommendation. The 18 participants with stage II-III were aware of multiple options. In 14 stage IV participants, balancing quality of life and outcomes between treatments was common to the decision process.

Conclusions: For this educated sample with bladder cancer, recruited at a comprehensive cancer center, the major decision was to seek treatment at a location with the highest level of physician expertise. Personal preferences informed decisions surrounding bladder reconstruction. Further research will be conducted in a diverse sample of patients making decisions in a non-urban, community setting.

Development, validation and evaluation of an instrument for active monitoring of men with clinically localised prostate cancer: systematic review, cohort studies and qualitative study

Background

Active surveillance [(AS), sometimes called active monitoring (AM)],is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended management option for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). It aims to target radical treatment only to those who would benefit most. Little consensus exists nationally or internationally about safe and effective protocols for AM/AS or triggers that indicate if or when men should move to radical treatment.

Objective

The aims of this project were to review how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been used in AM/AS programmes; to develop and test the validity of a new model for predicting future PSA levels; to develop an instrument, based on PSA, that would be acceptable and effective for men and clinicians to use in clinical practice; and to design a robust study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the instrument.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to investigate how PSA is currently used to monitor men in worldwide AM/AS studies. A model for PSA change with age was developed using Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) data and validated using data from two PSA-era cohorts and two pre-PSA-era cohorts. The model was used to derive 95% PSA reference ranges (PSARRs) across ages. These reference ranges were used to predict the onset of metastases or death from PCa in one of the pre-PSA-era cohorts. PSARRs were incorporated into an active monitoring system (AMS) and demonstrated to 18 clinicians and 20 men with PCa from four NHS trusts. Qualitative interviews investigated patients’ and clinicians’ views about current AM/AS protocols and the acceptability of the AMS within current practice.

Results

The systematic review found that the most commonly used triggers for clinical review of PCa were PSA doubling time (PSADT) < 3 years or PSA velocity (PSAv) > 1 ng/ml/year. The model for PSA change (developed using ProtecT study data) predicted PSA values in AM/AS cohorts within 2 ng/ml of observed PSA in up to 79% of men. Comparing the three PSA markers, there was no clear optimal approach to alerting men to worsening cancer. The PSARR and PSADT markers improved the modelc-statistic for predicting death from PCa by 0.11 (21%) and 0.13 (25%), respectively, compared with using diagnostic information alone [PSA, age, tumour stage (T-stage)]. Interviews revealed variation in clinical practice regarding eligibility and follow-up protocols. Patients and clinicians perceive current AM/AS practice to be framed by uncertainty, ranging from uncertainty about selection of eligible AM/AS candidates to uncertainty about optimum follow-up protocols and thresholds for clinical review/radical treatment. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to the AMS. The impact of the AMS on clinicians’ decision-making was limited by a lack of data linking AMS values to long-term outcomes and by current clinical practice, which viewed PSA measures as one of several tools guiding clinical decisions in AM/AS. Patients reported that they would look to clinicians, rather than to a tool, to direct decision-making.

Limitations

The quantitative findings were severely hampered by a lack of clinical outcomes or events (such as metastases). The qualitative findings were limited through reliance on participants’ reports of practices and recollections of events rather than observations of actual interactions.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians found that the instrument provided additional, potentially helpful, information but were uncertain about the current usefulness of the risk model we developed for routine management. Comparison of the model with other monitoring strategies will require clinical outcomes from ongoing AM/AS studies.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients who are diagnosed with localized prostate cancer need to make critical treatment decisions that are sensitive to their values and preferences. The role of decision aids in facilitating these decisions is unknown. The authors conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of decision aids for localized prostate cancer. Teams of 2 reviewers independently identified, selected, and abstracted data from 14 eligible trials (n = 3377 men), of which 10 were conducted in North America. Of these, 11 trials compared decision aids with usual care, and 3 trials compared decision aids with other decision aids. Two trials suggested a modest positive impact on decisional regret. Results across studies varied widely for decisional conflict (4 studies), satisfaction with decision (2 studies), and knowledge (2 studies). No impact on treatment choices was observed (6 studies). In conclusion, scant evidence at high risk of bias suggests the variable impact of existing decision aids on a limited set of decisional processes and outcomes. Because current decision aids provide information but do not directly facilitate shared decision making, subsequent efforts would benefit from user-centered design of decision aids that promote shared decision making.

Psychosocial Oncology Supports for Men: A Scoping Review and Recommendations

Although men's cancer experiences have received limited attention within the field of psychosocial oncology, increasing attention is being devoted to the development and evaluation of men-centered programs. This scoping review describes this emergent body of literature, detailing the focus, participation, and impact of interventions designed to help men with cancer build illness-specific knowledge, adapt to illness, manage side effects, distress, and uncertainty, sustain relationships, and more. Striving to build on existing knowledge, research gaps and opportunities are discussed, including a need for stronger methodologies, more tailored and targeted supports, attention to the experiences of men with nonprostate cancers, and the explicit integration of gender analyses in the research process.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Older adults newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma and treatment decision making

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe the preferences for participation in decision making of older adult patients newly diagnosed with symptomatic myeloma and to explore the association between sociodemographic variables and decisional role preferences.

DESIGN

Descriptive, cross-sectional design.

SETTING

Participants' homes and two large academic cancer centers in Seattle, WA, and Chicago, IL.

SAMPLE

A convenience sample of 20 older adults (60 years of age and older) with symptomatic myeloma diagnosed within the past six months.

METHODS

The Control Preferences Scale was administered followed by an in-person, one-time, semistructured interview.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Role preferences for participation in treatment decision making, age, gender, race, work status, personal relationship status, education, and income.

FINDINGS

Fifty-five percent of the participants preferred a shared role with the physician and 40% preferred to make the decisions after seriously considering the opinion of their physicians. Only one participant preferred to leave the decision to the doctor, as long as the doctor considered the patient's treatment preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings indicate that older adults newly diagnosed with myeloma want to participate in treatment decision making. Oncology nurses must respect the patient's desired role preference and oncology clinicians must listen to the patient and allow him or her to be autonomous in making treatment decisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses and other oncology clinicians can elicit a patient's preferred level of participation in treatment decision making. Oncology nurses can make sure patients receive disease- and treatment-related information, encourage them to express their decisional role preference to the physician, develop a culture of mutual respect and value their desire for autonomy for treatment decision making, acknowledge that the right to make a treatment choice belongs to the patient, and provide support during treatment decision making throughout the care continuum.

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.

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.

Educational benefits of Internet and computer-based programmes for prostate cancer patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review systematically the available literature on Internet and computer-based patient education programmes, assess the quality of these studies and analyze the benefit of these programmes for prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

Complete databases were searched. Studies were included if they concerned patient education of prostate cancer patients, were qualitative or quantitative and examined Internet or interactive CD-ROM use.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies reported a significant increase in the knowledge of the disease, satisfaction with treatment options and support for men. The benefit of the programmes was that the patients felt more empowered and obtained a heightened sense of control over their disease.

CONCLUSION

The Internet or computer-based programmes had a positive impact on prostate cancer patient education. Most papers reported that the programmes were beneficial, but few presented data from studies with rigorous research methodologies to support these claims.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Internet and computer-based programmes can be useful tools in prostate cancer patient education. In order to improve the benefits of the programmes, more Internet and computer-based programmes need to be developed and studied.

Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

As the incidence and prevalence of prostate cancer continue to rise, the number of men needing help and support to assist them in coping with disease and treatment-related symptoms and their psychosocial effects is likely to increase.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer in improving quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy and knowledge and in reducing distress, uncertainty and depression.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for trials using a range of electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to October 2013, together with handsearching of journals and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of psychosocial interventions for men at any stage of prostate cancer. We included psychosocial interventions that explicitly used one or a combination of the following approaches: cognitive behavioural, psychoeducational, supportive and counselling. Interventions had to be delivered or facilitated by trained or lay personnel.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed data using standardised mean differences (SMDs), random-effects models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies comparing psychosocial interventions versus usual care in a total of 3204 men with prostate cancer were included in this review. All but three of these studies were conducted in the United States.Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a small, statistically significant improvement in the physical component of general health-related quality of life (GHQoL) at end of intervention (1414 participants, SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.22) based on low-quality evidence. A small improvement in favour of psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.47) was also seen in the physical component of GHQoL at end of intervention for group-based interventions. No clear evidence of benefit was found for GHQoL scores at end of intervention with individual-based interventions compared with controls. Also, no clear evidence suggested that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving the physical component of GHQoL at four to six and at eight to 12 months post-intervention. In addition, no clear evidence showed benefit associated with psychosocial interventions for the mental component of GHQoL at end of intervention (1416 participants, SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.06) based on moderate-quality evidence. Results for the mental component of GHQoL at four to six and at eight to 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm. At end of intervention, cancer-related QoL showed a small improvement following psychosocial interventions (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.39), but at eight and 12 months, the effect was compatible with benefit and harm. For prostate cancer-specific and symptom-related QoL, the differences between groups were not significant.No clear evidence indicated that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in improving self-efficacy at end of intervention (337 participants, SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) based on very low-quality evidence in three studies that assessed individual-based interventions. The results for self-efficacy at six to eight and at 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm. Men in the psychosocial intervention group had a moderate increase in prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention (506 participants, SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71) based on very low-quality evidence in two studies; this increase was also observed in the subgroups of group-based and individual-based interventions. A small increase in knowledge with psychosocial interventions was noted at three months post-intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.58).The results for uncertainty (916 participants, SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.26) and distress (916 participants, SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.15) at end of intervention were compatible with both benefit and harm based on very low-quality evidence. No clear evidence suggests that psychosocial interventions were beneficial in reducing uncertainty and distress between groups at six to eight and at 12 months post-intervention. Finally, no clear evidence of benefit is associated with psychosocial interventions for depression at end of intervention (434 participants, SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.15) based on very low-quality evidence. Individual-based interventions significantly reduced depression when compared with usual care groups. The results for depression at six and at 12 months post-intervention were compatible with benefit and harm.The overall risk of bias in the included studies was unclear or high, primarily as the result of performance bias.No data regarding stage of disease or treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were extractable for subgroup analysis. Only one study addressed adverse effects. High attrition could indicate that some participants may not have been comfortable with the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this review shows that psychosocial interventions may have small, short-term beneficial effects on certain domains of well-being, as measured by the physical component of GHQoL and cancer-related QoL when compared with usual care. Prostate cancer knowledge was also increased. However, this review failed to demonstrate a statistically significant effect on other domains such as symptom-related QoL, self-efficacy, uncertainty, distress or depression. Moreover, when beneficial effects were observed, it remained uncertain whether the magnitude of effect was large enough to be considered clinically important. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was rated as very low according to GRADE, reflecting study limitations, loss to follow-up, study heterogeneity and small sample sizes. We were unable to perform meaningful subgroup analyses based on disease stage or treatment modality. Although some findings of this review are encouraging, they do not provide sufficiently strong evidence to permit meaningful conclusions about the effects of these interventions in men with prostate cancer. Additional well-done and transparently reported research studies are necessary to establish the role of psychosocial interventions in men with prostate cancer.

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this trial was to compare usual patient education plus the Internet-based Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, vs. usual education alone, on conflict associated with decision making, plus explore time-to-treatment, and treatment choice.

METHODS

A randomized, multi-center clinical trial was conducted with measures at baseline, 1-, and 6 months. Men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer (CaP) who sought consultation at urology, radiation oncology, or multi-disciplinary clinics in 4 geographically-distinct American cities were recruited. Intervention group participants used the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, a decision support system comprised of customized text and video coaching regarding potential outcomes, influential factors, and communication with care providers. The primary outcome, patient-reported decisional conflict, was evaluated over time using generalized estimating equations to fit generalized linear models. Additional outcomes, time-to-treatment, treatment choice, and program acceptability/usefulness, were explored.

RESULTS

A total of 494 eligible men were randomized (266 intervention; 228 control). The intervention reduced adjusted decisional conflict over time compared with the control group, for the uncertainty score (estimate -3.61; (confidence interval, -7.01, 0.22), and values clarity (estimate -3.57; confidence interval (-5.85,-1.30). Borderline effect was seen for the total decisional conflict score (estimate -1.75; confidence interval (-3.61,0.11). Time-to-treatment was comparable between groups, while undecided men in the intervention group chose brachytherapy more often than in the control group. Acceptability and usefulness were highly rated.

CONCLUSION

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate is the first intervention to significantly reduce decisional conflict in a multi-center trial of American men with newly diagnosed localized CaP. Our findings support efficacy of P3P for addressing decision uncertainty and facilitating patient selection of a CaP treatment that is consistent with the patient values and preferences.

Role Preferences of People with Multiple Sclerosis: Image-Revised, Computerized Self-Administered Version of the Control Preference Scale

Background

The Control Preference Scale (CPS) is the most frequently used measure of patients’ preferred roles in treatment decisions. We revised the original CPS and developed a new computerized patient self-administered version (eCPS). We used the eCPS to assess role preferences, and their determinants, in Italian and German people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

New cartoons were produced, based on MS health professional and patient input/feedback and previous findings, and pilot tested on 26 Italian and German MS patients. eCPS acceptability and reliability (weighted kappa statistic, wK) in comparison to the original tool, was determined in 92 MS patients who received both CPS versions in random order.

Results

The new cartoons were well accepted and easily interpreted by patients, who reported they based their choices mainly on the text and considered the images of secondary importance. eCPS reliability was moderate (wK 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.65) and similar to the test-retest reliability of face-to-face administration assessed in a previous publication (wK 0.65, 95% CI 0.45–0.81). Higher education (odds ratio [OR] 3.74, 95% CI 1.00–14.05) and German nationality (OR 10.30, 95% CI 3.10–34.15) were associated with preference for an active role in the logistic model.

Conclusions

The newly devised eCPS was well received and considered easy to use by MS patients. Reliability was in line with that of the original version. Role preference appears affected by cultural characteristics and (borderline statistical significance) education.

A preliminary exploration of the feasibility of offering men information about potential prostate cancer treatment options before they know their biopsy results

Background

A small pre-test study was conducted to ascertain potential harm and anxiety associated with distributing information about possible cancer treatment options at the time of biopsy, prior to knowledge about a definitive cancer diagnosis. Priming men about the availability of multiple options before they have a confirmed diagnosis may be an opportunity to engage patients in more informed decision-making.

Methods

Men with an elevated PSA test or suspicious Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) who were referred to a urology clinic for a biopsy were randomized to receive either the clinic’s usual care (UC) biopsy instruction sheet (n = 11) or a pre-biopsy educational (ED) packet containing the biopsy instruction sheet along with a booklet about the biopsy procedure and a prostate cancer treatment decision aid originally written for newly diagnosed men that described in detail possible treatment options (n = 18).

Results

A total of 62% of men who were approached agreed to be randomized, and 83% of the ED group confirmed they used the materials. Anxiety scores were similar for both groups while awaiting the biopsy procedure, with anxiety scores trending lower in the ED group: 41.2 on a prostate-specific anxiety instrument compared to 51.7 in the UC group (p = 0.13). ED participants reported better overall quality of life while awaiting biopsy compared to the UC group (76.4 vs. 48.5, p = 0.01). The small number of men in the ED group who went on to be diagnosed with cancer reported being better informed about the risks and side effects of each option compared to men diagnosed with cancer in the UC group (p = 0.07). In qualitative discussions, men generally reported they found the pre-biopsy materials to be helpful and indicated having information about possible treatment options reduced their anxiety. However, 2 of 18 men reported they did not want to think about treatment options until after they knew their biopsy results.

Conclusions

In this small sample offering pre-biopsy education about potential treatment options was generally well received by patients, appeared to be beneficial to men who went on to be diagnosed, and did not appear to increase anxiety unnecessarily among those who had a negative biopsy.

Factors influencing treatment decision making and information preferences of prostate cancer patients on active surveillance

OBJECTIVE

To assess information and decision making preferences of patients on active surveillance (AS), and the factors influencing their decision.

METHODS

A cross-sectional sample of 180 patients on AS for <10 years completed a survey exploring the role men assumed with their physician in treatment decision making (TDM), factors influencing their decision to go on AS, and information preferences.

RESULTS

Thirty-five percent of patients reported assuming an active role in TDM, 38% a collaborative role and 27% a passive role. Results suggest that patients<60 years prefer to play an active role in TDM whereas, men>70 years prefer to play a passive role. Available treatment options, eating a 'prostate friendly' diet, and non-traditional therapies were identified as the top three information preferences. Patients with higher levels of anxiety wanted access to more information compared to those with lower levels of anxiety. The urologists' recommendation was rated the most important factor influencing patients' decisions to go on AS.

CONCLUSION

The urologist's recommendation for treatment continues to have the most influence on the decision to go on AS. Our results suggest that age has an impact on the role patients wish to assume in TDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Assessments of patients' information and decision preferences, and levels of anxiety are suggested for all prostate cancer patients considering AS.

Measuring decisional control preferences in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer

The Control Preferences Scale is widely used in decision research to measure patient preferences for participation in treatment decision making with health care providers. Following anecdotal reports of confusion with the scale the authors conducted an exploratory interview study to examine perceptions of the meaning and applicability of the Control Preferences Scale for men with localized prostate cancer seeking treatment in a multidisciplinary urology clinic. The preliminary data suggest potential validity challenges when the Control Preferences Scale is used in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer care setting, including the clinical context of localized prostate cancer and the meaning of shared decision making.

Multi-media support for informed/shared decision-making before and after a cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

To define and distinguish informed decision-making (IDM) from shared decision-making (SDM) and review the evidence for technology-based interventions designed to facilitate informed decisions about cancer screening and treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed research articles from Medline and other data sources accessible through pubmed.gov.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that multi-media decision aids (DAs) or support systems can improve quality of decision-making in terms of enhancing knowledge relevant to decision-making, reducing decisional conflict, and customizing education and coaching of patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses have a key role to play in designing, deploying, monitoring, and evaluating multi-media DAs in oncology practice settings. DAs are an adjunct to interpersonal education, providing information to patients in both the clinical setting and in more familiar settings without the time constraints of clinical encounters. Nurses can adopt such DAs and support systems and work with patients to ensure that information has been comprehended, that values have been considered, and that patients play an active role in the decision-making process as they desire.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in decisions that involve weighing benefits, harms, and scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched from January 2006 to December 2009 in MEDLINE (Ovid); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, issue 4 2009); CINAHL (Ovid) (to September 2008 only); EMBASE (Ovid); PsycINFO (Ovid); and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (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 to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New for this updated review is evidence that: decision aids with explicit values clarification exercises improve informed values-based choices; decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication; and decision aids have a variable effect on length of consultation.Consistent with findings from the previous review, which had included studies up to 2006: decision aids increase people's involvement, and improve knowledge and realistic perception of outcomes; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the choice of discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, cost-effectiveness, and use with developing and/or lower literacy populations need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have positive effects on attributes of the decision or decision-making process.

Considering racial and ethnic preferences in communication and interactions among the patient, family member, and physician following diagnosis of localized prostate cancer: study of a US population

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among American men. The multiple treatment options for localized prostate cancer and potential side effects can complicate the decision-making process. We describe the level of engagement and communication among the patient, family member, and physician (the decision-making “triad”) in the decision process prior to treatment. Using the Family and Cancer Therapy Selection (FACTS) study baseline survey data, we note racial/ethnic variations in communication among the triad. Sensitivity to and awareness of decision-making styles of both the patient and their family member (or caregiver) may enable clinicians to positively influence communication exchanges about important clinical decisions.

Patient acceptance of active surveillance as a treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Active surveillance is a management strategy that offers patients the hope of avoiding the side effects associated with unnecessary treatment. This study identifies the resources required by men who choose to be on active surveillance to support them in their treatment decision.

OBJECTIVES

•  To examine the decision-making processes of men on active surveillance (AS). •  To identify the resources that men want to access to make, support and sustain them while on AS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

•  Three-part survey developed for this study based on a qualitative study of 25 men on AS. •  Survey items explored: role men assumed with their physician in treatment decision-making, factors influencing decision to go on AS, and resources required while on AS. •  Surveys mailed out to cross-sectional sample of men on AS for less than 10 years.

RESULTS

•  27% of the 73 men reported assuming an active role in treatment decision-making with their urologist, 41% a shared role and 32% a passive role. •  82% of men reported being comfortable and 90% being satisfied with their decision to be on AS. •  55% reported not being anxious about the cancer progressing while on AS. •  Urologist's opinion, current age, and impact of treatment on urinary function were main factors influencing treatment decision. •  Information on future treatment options, non-traditional treatments and diet considered most important resources.

CONCLUSIONS

•  Results suggest that once men make a decision to go on AS, they are satisfied with their decision and few report being anxious about progression of cancer. •  Men are strongly influenced by the treating specialist in taking up AS. •  Additional information and psychological support resources are required for men on AS.

Use and evaluation of a CD-ROM-based decision aid for prostate cancer treatment decisions

The survival advantages associated with different treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa) continue to be uncertain. We evaluated patients' use of an interactive CD-ROM-based decision aid designed to improve informed decision making about PCa treatment. Newly diagnosed, early-stage PCa patients who had not made a treatment decision completed a baseline telephone interview (N = 132), were mailed the CD-ROM, and completed a one-month follow-up interview (N = 120; 91%). Compared to non-users (21%), CD-users (79%) preferred to make an independent rather than a shared treatment decision (OR = 3.5, CI 1.2,10.5). The majority of users (63%-90%) responded positively regarding the length and clarity of the information. Further, 76% reported using the CD as much/more than other information sources. A preference for having less decisional control predicted greater satisfaction with the CD (F[7,87] = 4.75, p < .05). Electronic utilization data revealed that the topics most accessed concerned treatment information and that users spent over an hour using the CD (median = 72 minutes). This electronic educational tool was well-accepted by patients and may be particularly useful for patients who desire less control over their treatment decisions and who are less proactive in seeking information on their own.

Usability evaluation of the interactive Personal Patient Profile-Prostate decision support system with African American men

BACKGROUND

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P4) program is an interactive Web-based decision support system that provides men with localized prostate cancer customized education and coaching with which to make the best personal treatment decision. This study assessed functionality and usability of the P4 program and identified problems in user-computer interaction in a sample of African American men.

METHODS

Usability testing was conducted with 12 community-dwelling African American adult men. The health status of participants was not known or collected by the research team. Each participant worked with the P4 program and provided simultaneous feedback using the "think aloud" technique. Handwritten field notes were collated and assigned to 3 standard coded categories. Aspects of P4 program usability was made based on common issues in the assigned categories. Summary statistics were derived for types and frequency of usability issues noted in the coded data.

RESULTS

Twelve participants reported a total of 122 usability comments, with a mean of 9 usability comments. The most common usability issue by participant was completeness of information content, which comprised 53 (43%) of the total issues. Comprehensibility of text and graphics was second, comprising 51 (42%) of the total issues.

CONCLUSION

This study provided initial inventory of usability issues for community African American men that may potentially interfere with application of the P4 system in the community setting and overall system usability, confirming the need for usability testing of a culturally appropriate Internet-based decision support system before community application.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Factors associated with prostate cancer patients' and their spouses' satisfaction with a family-based intervention

Only a few programs are designed to help couples cope with the effects of prostate cancer, and typically, only their intervention outcomes are reported. The purpose of this study was to assess prostate cancer patients' and their spouses' satisfaction with an efficacious supportive-educative, family-based intervention, and factors associated with their satisfaction. We assessed the relationship of overall satisfaction with the intervention to (1) the patients' and spouses' appraisal and the resource and quality-of-life baseline scores and (2) changes in those scores after completing the intervention. Results showed that participants were very satisfied with the program. Patients who had higher scores on baseline measures, indicating more positive appraisal of their illness, better use of resources (eg, coping, self-efficacy), and higher overall quality of life, reported more satisfaction with the intervention. For spouses, few baseline measures were related to their satisfaction; however, spouses who reported positive changes after intervention (less negative appraisal and uncertainty, better communication) reported higher satisfaction with the program. Although satisfied with the program, factors associated with patients' and spouses' satisfaction differed. To translate effective interventions to clinical practice settings, it is important to assess participants' satisfaction with program content and delivery, as well as program outcomes.