How do patients between the age of 65 and 75 use a web-based decision aid for treatment choice in localized prostate cancer?

Development and validation of a web-based patient decision aid for immunotherapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic melanoma and their physicians are confronted with a complex decision regarding first-line therapy. Risks and benefits vary considerably between various treatment options. With this in mind, we aim to develop and evaluate a patient decision aid (PtDA) to inform patients about the risks and benefits of treatment options, namely, immunotherapy as monotherapy, immunotherapy as combination therapy, and treatment with BRAF/MEK inhibitors. We aim to test whether the use of this PtDA before medical consultation will increase patients' knowledge of treatment options and thus promote shared decision-making (SDM) and patient decision satisfaction.

METHODS

In total, 128 patients with metastatic melanoma from two German cancer centers will be randomized to the intervention group (IG), receiving access to the PtDA before medical consultation, or the control group (CG), receiving treatment as usual (TAU), i.e., medical consultation alone. There will be three major assessment points (before intervention, T0; after intervention, T1; and 3 months after intervention, T2). The main outcome is the patient's knowledge of their treatment options, measured by a self-developed, piloted multiple-choice test at T1. Secondary outcome measures will include the extent of SDM during medical consultation, assessed by Observer OPTION 5, and patient decision satisfaction, assessed by the Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SwD), at T1 and T2.

DISCUSSION

This trial will assess the effectiveness of a developed PtDA to enhance patient knowledge of treatment options for metastatic melanoma, SDM, and patient decision satisfaction. If the efficacy can be proven, the PtDA will be implemented nationwide in Germany to close a relevant gap in the education and care of patients with metastatic melanoma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04240717 . Registered on 27 January 2020.

'Prostate Cancer' Information on the Internet: Fact or Fiction?

Background/Aims

In today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'.

Methods

Search term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net.

Results

33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: 'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%).

Conclusion

Critical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.

Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment - A systematic review

CONTEXT

Despite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools.

OBJECTIVE

To identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990-2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified.

RESULTS

International Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients' values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.

Engaging patients in complex clinical decision-making: Successes, pitfalls, and future directions

BACKGROUND

By 2022, there will be 18 million predicted cancer survivors, which is an estimated 30% more than the number of survivors in 2012. In prostate cancer alone, the most common cancer in American men other than skin cancer, 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed during their lifetime. Nevertheless, only approximately 1 in 39 will actually die of the disease. Although life expectancy is often good, these men have multiple treatment management options to choose from, including active surveillance, surgery, or radiotherapy, each of which carries its own array of long-term adverse effects. The same applies to renal cancer where patient have to sift through information to decide among active surveillance, partial nephrectomy, racial nephrectomy, robotic vs. open surgery, and ablation.

BASIC PROCEDURES

Ultimately, patient, providers, and stakeholders lack high-quality evidence to effectively guide treatment decisions, and these decisions become even harder to discern when considering end-of-life care, palliative care, and the ethics regarding the new End of Life Option Act. As of November 1, 2016, the number of open urologic cancer clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov was 843.

MAIN FINDINGS

Although we continue to make tremendous strides in urologic cancer care, our options for choosing the best treatment from a patient and provider standpoint are seemingly growing murkier. We need to continue to understand how health-related quality of life varies from patient to patient, and ultimately, incorporate patient preferences and values into the treatment decision in order to make high-quality treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The remained of this articles will focus on the significant strides made in urologic oncology regarding these difficult decisions from localized disease to end-of-life care and also will detail what needs to be done as we continue to pivot forward.

The use of decision aids on early detection of prostate cancer: views of men and general practitioners

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

While decision support tools such as decision aids can contribute to shared decision making, implementing these tools in daily practice is challenging. To identify and address issues around the use of decision support tools in routine care, this study explores the views of men and general practitioners on using a DA for early detection of prostate cancer.

METHODS, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Group discussions and semi-structured interviews were carried out with 43 men and 16 general practitioners familiar with a previously developed decision aid. Data were analysed using qualitative description.

RESULTS

Views on using the decision support tool could be classified into four categories: no need for decision making, need for support, perceived benefit and practical barriers. For each category, several underlying themes could be identified that reflect the absence or presence of prerequisites to successful decision support delivery.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

While men and general practitioners generally have positive attitudes to shared decision making, for both parties attitudes such as not agreeing that there is a decision to be made and doubts on the beneficence of using DAs were identified as factors that may hinder the use of a DA in clinical practice. Participants formulated strategies to support the use of DAs, mainly supplementing DAs with short tools and investing in both training programmes and large-scale awareness raising of the general public.