Development and pilot-testing of a Decision Aid for use among Chinese women facing breast cancer surgery

Patient Decision Aids for Breast Cancer Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer to become the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women. There has been a dramatic increase in the use of breast reconstruction after mastectomy. However, struggle in making decisions regarding breast reconstruction has existed. Thus, a study of decision aids (DAs) needs to be conducted, and further studies are needed to promote better DAs. This review discusses how DAs can be used to help women make decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy. In addition, the review was the first to compare different DA formats to determine which one is most effective.

METHODS

The authors searched for relevant studies published before October of 2022 in PubMed and Embase using the medical subject headings "breast reconstruction" and "decision aid." Demographic data and decision, outcomes, and instruments used for assessment were also collected. Risk of bias was measured by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.

RESULTS

A network meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with a total of 1401 patients were included. A total of 90.9% participants presented usable results for evaluation of decisional conflict, and web-based DA (-0.3; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.05) showed significant improvement; 50.3% of participants provided results of decisional regret, and no subgroups showed significant reduction; 60.3% of participants contributed to results for knowledge, and web-based DA (0.61; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.21) showed the most positive effect. A total of 44.5% of participants were included for evaluation of satisfaction, and web-based DA (0.44; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.72) revealed significant increase.

CONCLUSION

The review concluded that web-based DAs are the favorable format of DA.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Designing a decision aid for cancer prevention: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Australian guidelines recommend people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The aim was to design sex-specific decision aids (DAs) with clinician and consumer input, including expected frequency trees (EFTs) to communicate the risks and benefits of taking aspirin.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians. Focus groups were conducted with consumers. The interview schedules covered ease of comprehension, design, potential effects on decision-making, and approaches to implementation of the DAs. Thematic analysis was employed; independent coding by 2 researchers was inductive. Themes were developed through consensus between authors.

RESULTS

Sixty-four clinicians were interviewed over 6 months in 2019. Twelve consumers aged 50-70 years participated in two focus groups in February and March 2020. The clinicians agreed that the EFTs would be helpful to facilitate a discussion with patients but suggested including an additional estimate of the effects of aspirin on all-cause mortality. The consumers felt favourable about the DAs and suggested changes to the design and wording to ease comprehension.

CONCLUSION

DAs were designed to communicate the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin for disease prevention. The DAs are currently being trialled in general practice to determine their impact on informed decision-making and aspirin uptake.

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.

Acceptability of a patient decision aid for women aged 70 and older with stage I, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

A comprehensive decision aid (DA) for women ≥70 years with Stage I ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer was developed to support locoregional and systemic treatment decision-making. We aimed to test the acceptability of this novel DA in women newly-diagnosed with breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women ≥70 diagnosed with Stage I, ER+/HER2- breast cancer were recruited from three Boston-area hospitals. They underwent baseline interviews after initial surgical consultation, reviewed the DA, and were surveyed <2 weeks later to determine DA acceptability (e.g., was it helpful?), changes in decisional conflict, stage of decision-making, and knowledge. Participants could optionally complete a three-month follow-up. Paired t-tests and McNemar's tests were used for statistical comparisons, and thematic analyses were conducted to identify themes in participants' open-ended comments.

RESULTS

Thirty-three of 56 eligible patients approached completed the baseline and acceptability surveys, and 25 completed the three-month follow-up. Participants' mean age was 74.7 years (±3.8). Nearly all participants (n = 31, 94%) strongly agreed that the DA was helpful and felt that the DA prepared them for treatment decision-making, with a mean decision preparation score of 4.1 (out of 5.0); 6% (n = 2) found it very anxiety provoking. Knowledge improved with a mean of 9.0 out of 14 questions correct at baseline to 10.6 correct on the acceptability survey (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A DA tailored to women ≥70 with Stage I, ER+, HER2- breast cancer increased knowledge and was perceived to be helpful by older women. A randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate its efficacy.

Shared Decision-Making in Breast Reconstruction for Breast Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review

For most breast cancer (BC) patients who have undergone a mastectomy, the decision whether to proceed with breast reconstruction (BR) is complicated and requires deliberation. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps to address those needs and promote informed value-based decisions. However, little is known about the SDM status for BR in BC patients. This scoping review describes: 1) basic characteristics of studies on BR SDM in BC patients; 2) factors influencing BR SDM in BC patients; 3) experience and perception of BR SDM in BC patients; and 4) outcome measures reported. This review was performed in accordance with the Arksey and O'Malley methodology. A total of 5 English and 4 Chinese databases were searched, as well as different sources from grey literature. The data extraction form was developed by referring to the objectives and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). Data was analyzed using thematic analysis, framework analysis and descriptive statistics, with findings presented in the tables and diagrams. A total of 1481 records were retrieved and 42 of these included after screening. In 21 (21/42, 50%) of the studies, patient decision aids (PDAs) were utilized, and in 17 (17/42, 40.48%) of the studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were explored. Of these 17 studies, the factors influencing the implementation of SDM were categorized into the following: the patient level (17/17, 100%), the healthcare level (2/17, 11.76%) and the organizational and system level (7/17, 41.18%). A total of 8 (19.05%) of the 42 studies focused on patients' experiences and perceptions of SDM, and all studies used qualitative research methods. Of these 8 studies, a total of 7 (7/8, 87.50%) focused on patients' experiences of SDM participation, and 4 (4/8, 50.00%) focused on patients' perceptions of SDM. A total of 24 studies (24/42, 57.14%) involved quantitative outcome measures, where 49 items were divided into three classifications according to the outcomes of ODSF: the quality of the decision (17/24, 70.83%), the quality of the decision-making process (20/24, 83.33%), and impact (13/24, 54.17%). Although researchers have paid less attention to other research points in the field of SDM, compared to the design and application of SDM interventional tools, the research team still presents some equally noteworthy points through scoping review. For instance, the various factors influencing BC patients' participation in SDM for BR (especially at the healthcare provider level and at the organizational system level), patients' experiences and perceptions. Systematic reviews (SRs) should be conducted to quantify the impact of these different factors on BR SDM. Implementation of scientific theories and methods can inform the exploration and integration of these factors.

Decision aids on breast conserving surgery for early stage breast cancer patients: a systematic review

Background

Breast cancer is a worldwide health concern. For early stage breast cancer patients, choosing the surgical method after diagnosis is always a dilemma. Decision aids designed for use by patients are tools which may help with surgical decision making for these patients.

Methods

We screened through MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science using the inclusion criteria which included (1) newly diagnosed patients with early stage breast cancer, (2) outcomes/results involving surgical options including breast conserving surgery. The search strategy used these key words or the combination of these words: “breast cancer”, “decision aid”, “decision making”, “decision support”, “breast conserving surgery”, “breast conserving therapy”.

Results

A total of 621 studies were identified, but only seven studies were included. Results were synthesized into narrative format. Various patterns of decision aids designed for use by patients were implemented. Mostly were educational materials via booklet, video or CDROM with or without assistance from surgeons. After decision aids, four studies showed that patients were more likely to change their original choices into mastectomy or modified radical instead of sticking to breast conserving surgery. Other results such as knowledge of breast cancer and treatments, decisional conflict and satisfaction, psychological changes after surgery and quality of life were all showed with a better trend in patients with decision aids in most studies.

Conclusion

Decision aids on breast conserving surgery made it easier for patient involvement in surgical decision making and improved decision-related outcomes in most early stage breast cancer patients. With more attention, improving procedures, and better interdisciplinary cooperation, more research is necessary for the improvement of decision aids. And we believe decision aids with agreed objective information are needed.

Development and pre/post testing of a decision aid supporting Chinese parental and young women's HPV vaccination decision-making

We developed and tested the acceptability and utility of a novel HPV vaccination decision aid (DA) among Chinese young women aged 18-26 years and parents of adolescent girls aged 9-17 years. From March to May 2016, a total of 101 parents plus 109 young women completed baseline surveys assessing their HPV vaccination knowledge, decision self-efficacy, decision conflict, and HPV vaccination intention. Two weeks after receiving the DA, 84 (83.2%) parents and 92 (84.4%) young women completed re-assessments. Chi-square tests or t-tests were performed to compare the before-and-after differences. Cohen's d was calculated to indicate the effect size. After reading the DA, both participating young women's and parents' knowledge of HPV vaccination (Cohen's d = 0.62 among young women and d = 0.59 among parents) and decision self-efficacy (d = 0.38 among young women and d = 0.59 among parents) significantly increased. Both young women's and parents' decision conflict (d = -0 · 98 and -1.06) significantly decreased. The proportion of young women intending to receive HPV vaccination and parents deciding to vaccinate daughters against HPV significantly increased (p < 0 · 0001). The DA showed good acceptability and utility facilitating HPV vaccination decision-making for most Chinese young women and parents of adolescent girls. Further randomized controlled trials of this tool are essential.

Development and pilot-testing of patient decision aid for use among Chinese patients with primary open-angle glaucoma

Background

A patient decision aid (PDA) is a tool for shared decision making (SDM), which emphasises patient empowerment. It is useful in chronic diseases and when there are multiple, no best single treatment option. Although SDM is prevalent in Western countries, its use is limited in Chinese societies, where the adoption of a paternalistic approach is strong. Here, we report the development, acceptance and pilot test results of a PDA targeted at Chinese patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).

Methods

We developed a PDA designed for use in Chinese patients with POAG. Recruited subjects were given our PDA. Baseline evaluation included decision conflict scale (DCS), validated glaucoma adherence questionnaires and glaucoma knowledge questionnaire. Subjects were briefed through the PDA and instructed to read it that day. Three to four weeks later, follow-up questionnaire as described above were conducted with the addition of acceptance questionnaires.

Results

Data from 65 subjects were available. The PDA was well received among subjects. DCS improved from 48.9±20.4 at baseline to 34.3±20.3 during follow-up, with P<0.01. Validated medication adherence questionnaires and knowledge showed improvement from baseline, which was statistically significant.

Conclusions

The use of PDA among Chinese subjects with POAG demonstrated positive reception and acceptance. Evaluation of its initial effects shows improvement in DCS, medication adherence and glaucoma knowledge. The implementation of SDM and PDA among Chinese subjects with POAG is encouraged. Future studies with randomised design and later evaluation time points can further reveal the impacts of PDA among Chinese subjects with POAG.

Developing a patient decision aid for the treatment of women with early stage breast cancer: the struggle between simplicity and complexity

Background

A patient decision aid (PtDA) can support shared decision making (SDM) in preference-sensitive care, with more than one clinically applicable treatment option. The development of a PtDA is a complex process, involving several steps, such as designing, developing and testing the draft with all the stakeholders, known as alpha testing. This is followed by testing in ‘real life’ situations, known as beta testing, and then finalising the definite version.

Our aim was developing and alpha testing a PtDA for primary treatment of early stage breast cancer, ensuring that the tool is considered relevant, valid and feasible by patients and professionals.

Methods

Our qualitative descriptive study applied various methods including face-to-face think-aloud interviews, a focus group and semi-structured telephone interviews. The study population consisted of breast cancer patients facing the choice between breast-conserving therapy with or without preceding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy, and professionals involved in breast cancer care in dedicated multidisciplinary breast cancer teams.

Results

A PtDA was developed in four iterative test rounds, taking nearly 2 years, involving 26 patients and 26 professionals. While the research group initially opted for simplicity for the sake of implementation, the clinicians objected that the complexity of the decision could not be ignored. Other topics of concern were the conflicting views of professionals and patients regarding side effects, the amount of information and how to present it.

Conclusion

The development was an extensive process, because the professionals rejected the simplifications proposed by the research group. This resulted in the development of a completely new draft PtDA, which took double the expected time and resources. The final version of the PtDA appeared to be well-appreciated by professionals and patients, although its acceptability will only be proven in actual practice (beta testing).

Trial registration

NTR TC 5721.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0505-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

A systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer

Several complex treatment decisions may be offered to women with early stage breast cancer, about a range of treatments from different modalities including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids can facilitate shared decision-making and improve decision-related outcomes. We aimed to systematically identify, describe and appraise the literature on treatment decision aids for women with early breast cancer, synthesise the data and identify breast cancer decisions that lack a decision aid. A prospectively developed search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and abstract databases from major conferences. Data were extracted into a pre-piloted form. Quality and risk of bias were measured using Qualsyst criteria. Results were synthesised into narrative format. Thirty-three eligible articles were identified, evaluating 23 individual treatment decision aids, comprising 13 randomised controlled trial reports, seven non-randomised comparative studies, eight single-arm pre-post studies and five cross-sectional studies. The decisions addressed by these decision aids were: breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy (+/- reconstruction); use of chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy; radiotherapy; and fertility preservation. Outcome measures were heterogeneous, precluding meta-analysis. Decisional conflict decreased, and knowledge and satisfaction increased, without any change in anxiety or depression, in most studies. No studies were identified that evaluated decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy, or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Decision aids are available and improved decision-related outcomes for many breast cancer treatment decisions including surgery, radiotherapy, and endocrine and chemotherapy. Decision aids for neoadjuvant systemic therapy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy could not be found, and may be warranted.

To Share or Not to Share: Malaysian Healthcare Professionals' Views on Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment Decision Making Roles

Aim

To explore the views of Malaysian healthcare professionals (HCPs) on stakeholders’ decision making roles in localized prostate cancer (PCa) treatment.

Methods

Qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted with HCPs treating PCa. Data was analysed using a thematic approach. Four in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted between December 2012 and March 2013 using a topic guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.

Findings

The participants comprised private urologists (n = 4), government urologists (n = 6), urology trainees (n = 6), government policy maker (n = 1) and oncologists (n = 3). HCP perceptions of the roles of the three parties involved (HCPs, patients, family) included: HCP as the main decision maker, HCP as a guide to patients’ decision making, HCP as a facilitator to family involvement, patients as main decision maker and patient prefers HCP to decide. HCPs preferred to share the decision with patients due to equipoise between prostate treatment options. Family culture was important as family members often decided on the patient’s treatment due to Malaysia’s close-knit family culture.

Conclusions

A range of decision making roles were reported by HCPs. It is thus important that stakeholder roles are clarified during PCa treatment decisions. HCPs need to cultivate an awareness of sociocultural norms and family dynamics when supporting non-Western patients in making decisions about PCa.

Towards informed decisions on breast cancer screening: Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for Chinese women

OBJECTIVE

To pilot-test a novel, self-use breast cancer (BC) screening decision aid (DA) targeting Hong Kong (HK) Chinese women at average risk of BC.

METHODS

Women were recruited through a population-based telephone survey using random digit dialling between October 2013 and January 2014. Eligible participants completed our baseline survey and then received the DA by post. Participants (n=90) completed follow-up telephone interviews one month later.

RESULTS

Most participants thought that all/most DA content was presented clearly (86.7%), and was useful in helping women make screening-related decisions (88.9%). It also achieved its expected impact of improving informed decision-making and increasing shared-participation preference without increasing participants' anxiety levels. Participants showed a modest non-statistical increase in their screening knowledge scores. Older women rated the perceived severity of a BC diagnosis as significantly lower, and more educated women reported significantly lower perceived anxiety about the disease.

CONCLUSION

Our DA appears acceptable and feasible for self-use by HK Chinese women who need to make an informed decision about BC screening without increasing overall anxiety levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study supports the potential of self-use DAs for cancer screening-related decision support in a Chinese population.

Design and Focus Test of a Preconsultation Decision Aid for Breast Cancer Reconstruction Patients: A Quality Improvement Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To design, develop, and evaluate via focus group a preconsultation decision aid to improve patient satisfaction for breast reconstruction.

METHODS

The design of the decision aid was based on perceived patient needs, literature, existing decision aids, and current standard of breast cancer reconstruction treatment and consultation at Stanford. Our decision aid was designed to (1) reducing fear of the unknown in patients via providing a knowledge base that they can rely on, (2) helping patients identify their key breast reconstruction concerns, (3) addressing common patient concerns, (4) providing a framework to help patients identify the treatment option that may be right for them, and (5) promoting shared decision making. Physicians were consulted on the decision aid, following which a focus group was conducted for patient feedback.

RESULTS

Interviewed patients (n = 12) were supportive of the decision aid initiative. Participants were especially pleased with the side-by-side comparison of surgical options and the parsimonious way information was represented. All patients before undergoing reconstruction (n = 3) requested the decision guide to reference at home. All interviewed patients believed information level was "about right."

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid was well received by patients in the focus group. As the initiative is for quality improvement, we saw no need to further delay the distribution of the decision aid. A pilot study will be conducted to evaluate whether our decision aid has an effect on patients' decision regret, stress, and anxiety.

Shared decision-making in the People's Republic of China: current status and future directions

BACKGROUND

Severe insufficiencies in the supply and inequities in the distribution of health care professionals, facilities, and services create conditions for limited quality of care and lack of trust - even violent conflict - between clinicians and patients in the People's Republic of China. Alongside structural reform, shared decision-making (SDM) may help meet the needs and advance the goals of each patient. Little is known, however, about the realities and opportunities for SDM in the People's Republic of China.

METHODS

To identify reports of SDM in the People's Republic of China, we used multiple sources, including: several databases, searched in English and Chinese, online journals, and clinical trial registries. In addition, we contacted experts in the field to identify any articles missed through our other search strategies. We included all trials and surveys reporting on SDM in Chinese patients. We summarized these studies by describing them with particular attention to reports of patient decisional preference and of the impact of SDM interventions on outcomes in Chinese patients.

RESULTS

We identified five surveys examining patient preference for SDM and nine studies examining constructs related to SDM in Chinese patients, but none involving patients in Mainland China. We could not find any reports of development, testing, or implementation of SDM tools for patients in Mainland China.

CONCLUSION

The research on SDM in the People's Republic of China is limited, with almost no direct evidence to inform clinical policies or implementation. Although multiple barriers are apparent, the value of implementing, testing, and disseminating effective SDM in the People's Republic of China in terms of patient experience and outcomes demands urgent realization.

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.

Reducing treatment decision conflict difficulties in breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Breast cancer (BC) decision aid (DA) randomized studies are limited to DA use in consultations among Western populations and for primary surgery. Their effectiveness beyond consultations, for reconstructive surgery and in other populations, has not been evaluated. We developed a DA administered after consultation for Chinese women deciding on BC surgery and, where relevant, immediate breast reconstruction, which was evaluated in this randomized controlled trial (RCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 276 women considering BC surgery for early-stage BC were randomly assigned to receive a DA (take-home booklet) or the standard information booklet (control condition) after the initial consultation, wherein surgeons disclosed the diagnosis and discussed treatment options with patients. Using block random assignment by week, 138 women were assigned to the DA arm and 138 to the control arm. Participants completed interview-based questionnaires 1 week after consultation and then 1, 4, and 10 months after surgery. Primary outcome measures were decisional conflict, decision-making difficulties, BC knowledge 1 week after consultation, and decision regret 1 month after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were treatment decision, decision regret 4 and 10 months after surgery, and postsurgical anxiety and depression.

RESULTS

The DA group reported significantly lower decisional conflict scores 1 week after consultation (P = .016) compared with women in the control arm. Women receiving the DA had significantly lower decision regret scores 4 (P = .026) and 10 months (P = .014) after surgery and lower depression scores 10 months after surgery (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

This RCT demonstrated DAs may benefit Chinese patients in Hong Kong by reducing decisional conflict and subsequent regret and enhance clinical services for this population.

Using decision aids to improve treatment choices for women with breast cancer

SUMMARY Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide and decision-making regarding treatment options can be complex; however, patients often desire to be involved in health-related decisions. There has been a growing body of research into decision-support tools such as decision aids (DAs). Generally, DAs outperform standard care over a range of decision-making outcomes and there are some that have been developed for use with breast cancer patients across the treatment trajectory, which have been evaluated for use in practice. There is scope for developing additional DAs for cancer patients, however, there are some limitations and barriers that need to be overcome as part of the implementation process. Consideration for the mechanisms for maintaining relevancy of materials and ease of accessibility is also needed.