Development of a patient decision aid for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a participatory design approach

Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

METHODS

A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

RESULTS

A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

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.

Taking shared decision making for prostate cancer to the next level: Requirements for a Dutch treatment decision aid with personalized risks on side effects

BACKGROUND

Different curative treatment modalities need to be considered in case of localized prostate cancer, all comparable in terms of survival and recurrence though different in side effects. To better inform patients and support shared decision making, the development of a web-based patient decision aid including personalized risk information was proposed. This paper reports on requirements in terms of content of information, visualization of risk profiles, and use in practice.

METHODS

Based on a Dutch 10-step guide about the setup of a decision aid next to a practice guideline, an iterative and co-creative design process was followed. In collaboration with various groups of experts (health professionals, usability and linguistic experts, patients and the general public), research and development activities were continuously alternated.

RESULTS

Content requirements focused on presenting information only about conventional treatments and main side effects; based on risk group; and including clear explanations about personalized risks. Visual requirements involved presenting general and personalized risks separately; through bar charts or icon arrays; and along with numbers or words, and legends. Organizational requirements included integration into local clinical pathways; agreement about information input and output; and focus on patients' numeracy and graph literacy skills.

CONCLUSIONS

The iterative and co-creative development process was challenging, though extremely valuable. The translation of requirements resulted in a decision aid about four conventional treatment options, including general or personalized risks for erection, urinary and intestinal problems that are communicated with icon arrays and numbers. Future implementation and validation studies need to inform about use and value in practice.

Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review

Background

Thorough holistic development of eHealth can contribute to a good fit among the technology, its users, and the context. However, despite the availability of frameworks, not much is known about specific research activities for different aims, phases, and settings. This results in researchers having to reinvent the wheel. Consequently, there is a need to synthesize existing knowledge on research activities for participatory eHealth development processes.

Objective

The 3 main goals of this review are to create an overview of the development strategies used in studies based on the CeHRes (Center for eHealth Research) Roadmap, create an overview of the goals for which these methods can be used, and provide insight into the lessons learned about these methods.

Methods

We included eHealth development studies that were based on the phases and/or principles of the CeHRes Roadmap. This framework was selected because of its focus on participatory, iterative eHealth design in context and to limit the scope of this review. Data were extracted about the type of strategy used, rationale for using the strategy, research questions, and reported information on lessons learned. The most frequently mentioned lessons learned were summarized using a narrative, inductive approach.

Results

In the included 160 papers, a distinction was made between overarching development methods (n=10) and products (n=7). Methods are used to gather new data, whereas products can be used to synthesize previously collected data and support the collection of new data. The identified methods were focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, usability tests, literature studies, desk research, log data analyses, card sorting, Delphi studies, and experience sampling. The identified products were prototypes, requirements, stakeholder maps, values, behavior change strategies, personas, and business models. Examples of how these methods and products were applied in the development process and information about lessons learned were provided.

Conclusions

This study shows that there is a plethora of methods and products that can be used at different points in the development process and in different settings. To do justice to the complexity of eHealth development, it seems that multiple strategies should be combined. In addition, we found no evidence for an optimal single step-by-step approach to develop eHealth. Rather, researchers need to select the most suitable research methods for their research objectives, the context in which data are collected, and the characteristics of the participants. This study serves as a first step toward creating a toolkit to support researchers in applying the CeHRes Roadmap to practice. In this way, they can shape the most suitable and efficient eHealth development process.

Development and Evaluation of a Real-World Outcomes-Based Tool to Support Informed Clinical Decision Making in the Palliative Treatment of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC

PURPOSE

To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting.

METHODS

A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs.

RESULTS

From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved.

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

BACKGROUND

The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration.

METHODS

To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items.

RESULTS

The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].

Decision Aids for Shared Decision-making in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Decision aids (DAs) aim to support patients in the process of shared decision-making for complex treatment decisions. To improve patient-centered care in uro-oncology, it is essential to evaluate the availability and quality of existing DAs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of existing DAs for patients across the most prevalent uro-oncological entities.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic literature search (MedLine, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and CCMed) was conducted to identify DAs for treatment decisions for patients with prostate, renal, or bladder cancer. All studies reporting on the development or evaluation of DAs were included. The DAs were examined based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and the evaluation studies were compared in accordance with Standards for Universal reporting of a patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature search identified 1995 potentially relevant publications. Thirty-two studies reporting on 25 DAs met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two DAs address prostate cancer, two renal tumor, and one bladder cancer. In the majority of DAs (n = 20), patients can enter individual data. A few (n = 6) DAs allow for personalization using a risk-adapted presentation of treatment options. The percentage of IPDAS criteria met in DAs ranged between 50% and 100% (median 87.5%), and the studies' adherence to the SUNDAE checklist was between 62% and 96% (median 86.6%). Evaluation studies suggest that interventions are likely efficacious. However, a preliminary meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between "DA" and "usual care" for decisional conflict or decisional regret.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that a number of well-developed DAs exist in urology. However, there is a need for specific instruments targeting kidney and bladder cancer. Personalization of tools and adherence to international standards of DAs should be further improved.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The majority of uro-oncological decision aids target prostate cancer, whereas fewer address kidney or bladder cancer. The quality of the existing instruments is high, but can be increased further to better address specific needs of individual patients.

Introducing Decision Aids into Routine Prostate Cancer Care in The Netherlands: Implementation and Patient Evaluations from the Multi-regional JIPPA Initiative

Uptake of decision aids (DAs) in daily routine is low, resulting in limited knowledge about successful DA implementation at a large scale. We assessed implementation rates after multi-regional implementation of three different prostate cancer (PCa) treatment DAs and patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to use a DA. Thirty-three hospitals implemented one out of the three DAs in routine care. Implementation rates for each DA were calculated per hospital. After deciding about PCa treatment, patients (n = 1033) completed a survey on pre-formulated barriers and facilitators to use a DA. Overall DA implementation was 40%. For each DA alike, implementation within hospitals varied from incidental (< 10% of eligible patients receiving a DA) to high rates of implementation (> 80%). All three DAs were evaluated positively by patients, although concise and paper DAs yielded higher satisfaction scores compared with an elaborate online DA. Patients were most satisfied when they received the DA within a week after diagnosis. Pre-formulated barriers to DA usage were experienced by less than 10% of the patients, and most patients confirmed the facilitators. Many patients received a DA during treatment counseling, although a wide variation in uptake across hospitals was observed for each DA. Most patients were satisfied with the DA they received. Sustained implementation of DAs in clinical routine requires further encouragement and attention.

User-centered development of a hypospadias decision aid prototype

INTRODUCTION

Many parents who choose hypospadias repair for their sons experience decisional conflict (DC) and decisional regret (DR). We previously found that parental decision-making about hypospadias surgery is a complex process characterized by cyclic information-seeking to alleviate anxiety and confusion.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to engage parents of hypospadias patients and pediatric providers in the co-design of a decision aid (DA) prototype to facilitate shared decision-making about hypospadias surgery and address DC and DR.

METHODS

From August 2018 to January 2019, we conducted three co-design workshops with parents of hypospadias patients, pediatric urology and general pediatric providers to discuss their recommendations for a DA prototype. Activities were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts and worksheets were analyzed by six coders using qualitative analysis to identify key aspects of a hypospadias DA desired by stakeholders. We conducted a collaborative design and prototyping session to establish key features and requirements, created a content map visualizing this work, and then developed a DA prototype.

RESULTS

Parent participants included 6 mothers and 4 fathers: 8 Caucasian, 2 African-American; median age 31 years. Providers included pediatric urology (n = 7) and general pediatric providers (n = 10): median age 47.5 years, 83.3% Caucasian, 58.3% male, 58.3% MD's and 41.7% nurse practitioners. Participants created user-friendly, interactive DA prototypes with "24/7" availability that had three key functions: 1) provide accurate, customizable, educational content, 2) connect parents with each other, and 3) engage them in a decision-making activity. The prototype consisted of five modules (Extended Summary Figure). "Hypospadias Basics" includes epidemiology and a hypospadias severity scale. "Surgery Basics" includes goals, illustrated steps, and pros/cons of surgery. "Testimonials" includes videos of parents and adolescents discussing their experiences. "Help me Decide" includes a decisional conflict scale and a decision-making activity (i.e. values clarification method). "Frequently Asked Questions" covers general hypospadias information, perioperative expectations and a review of postoperative care.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first DA prototype developed for a pediatric urology condition using a human-centered design approach to engage many key stakeholders in the development process. One limitation of this study is the small population sampled, which limits generalizability and means that our findings may not reflect the views of all parents or pediatric providers involved in hypospadias decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

We created a parent-centered hypospadias DA prototype that provides decision support in an online, interactive format. Future directions include further testing with usability experts, providers and parents.

Evaluation of the Decision Aid for Genital Surgery in Transmen

BACKGROUND

Multiple options of genital gender-affirming surgery are available to transmen. The transman should be able to weigh these options based on the outcomes, risks, and consequences that are most important to him. For this reason, a decision aid for genital surgery in transmen (DA-GST) was developed. It aims to support the transman in making thoughtful choices among treatment options and facilitate shared decision-making between the healthcare professionals and the transindividual.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the newly developed DA-GST.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study using mixed methods. Transmen considering to undergo genital surgery were eligible to partake in the study. The questionnaires used in this study were developed by adapting the validated Dutch translation of the "Decisional Conflict Scale," the "Measures of Informed Choice," and the "Ottawa Preparation for Decision-Making Scale." Qualitative interviews were conducted querying their subjective experience with the DA-GST. The data from the questionnaires were statistically analyzed, and the data from the interviews were thematically analyzed.

OUTCOMES

The main outcome measures were decisional conflict and decisional confidence measured via self-report items and qualitative data regarding the use of the DA-GST via interviews.

RESULTS

In total, 51 transmen participated in the questionnaires study, 99 questionnaires were analyzed, and 15 interviews were conducted. Although confident in their decision, most transmen felt responsible to collect the necessary information themselves. The ability to go through the decision aid independently aided the decision-making process by providing information and highlighting their subjective priorities. Suggested additions are pictures of postoperational outcomes and personal statements from experienced transmen.

CLINICAL TRANSLATION

The DA-GST could be implemented as an integral part of transgender health care. Clinicians could take the individual personal values into account and use it to accurately tailor their consult. This would ultimately improve the doctor-patient relationship and decrease decisional regret by enhancing effective shared decision-making.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This mixed-method design study confirmed the use of the DA-GST while taking a broad range of decisional factors into account. Limitations include the absence of a baseline analysis and the limited power for the comparison of treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the DA-GST helped transmen feel more prepared for their personal consult with the surgeon, reduced decisional conflict, and increased their decisional confidence. Mokken SE, Özer M, van de Grift TC, et al. Evaluation of the Decision Aid for Genital Surgery in Transmen. J Sex Med 2020;17:2067-2076.

Evidence-Based Decision Aid for Patients With Parkinson Disease: Protocol for Interview Study, Online Survey, and Two Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making is particularly important in situations with different treatment alternatives. For the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson disease, both pharmacological and surgical approaches can be applied.

OBJECTIVE

In this research project, a series of studies will be conducted to investigate how decision aids for patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease should be designed in order to support the decision-making process.

METHODS

In Study 1a, qualitative interviews will be conducted to determine which needs frequently occur for patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease. In Study 1b, the identified needs will then be rated for personal relevance by an independent group of patients in an online survey. In Study 2, a randomized controlled trial will be used to pretest different decision aids in a sample group of people who do not have a medical background and who do not have Parkinson disease. In Study 3, a randomized controlled trial will be used to investigate the effect of the decision aids that had been evaluated as positive in Study 2 with patients who have idiopathic Parkinson disease.

RESULTS

This series of studies received ethical approval in January 2020. As of June 2020, data collection for Study 1a has started, and it is estimated that Studies 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 will take approximately 4, 4, 6, and 6 months to complete, respectively. It is planned to present the results and analyses at international conferences and to submit the results to peer-reviewed journals for publication, once the studies have been completed. The findings will also be shared with clinicians and patients through presentations at information events.

CONCLUSIONS

This series of studies is intended to result in an evidence-based decision aid for patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease in order to support the informed and reflected shared decision-making process. We further intend to contribute to a deeper understanding of the individual preferences of patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease and the impact of those preferences on treatment decisions.

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.

The relationship between role preferences in decision-making and level of psychological distress in patients with head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVE

Is there a relationship between decision-making preferences and psychological distress?

METHODS

Patients who had received treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) at four institutions within NSW, Australia were invited to complete a single questionnaire.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-seven patients completed the questionnaire. The majority of patients (308, 54%) preferred shared decision making. Significant predictors of a preference towards active decision making were education level (OR 2.1 for tertiary, p < 0.001), primary cancer site (OR 1.9 for thyroid compared to salivary gland, p = 0.024) and gender (OR 1.4 for female, p = 0.028). Mean psychological distress score on Kessler 6 (K6) was 9 (Range: 0-28). Significant predictors of psychological distress were age (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), primary site (p < 0.01), and decision preference (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

HNC patients who are either tertiary educated or female are more likely to prefer active involvement in decision-making. Psychological distress is more likely in patients actively involved in decision making, younger patients, and in females.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patients experienced paternalistic decision-making, but most preferred active or a shared approached. Clinicians need to be aware of potential for psychological distress in active decision-makers and refer patients for psychosocial support.

Uptake and usage of an online prostate cancer treatment decision aid in Dutch clinical practice: A quantitative analysis from the Prostate Cancer Patient Centered Care trial

Implementation of patient’s decision aids in routine clinical care is generally low. This study evaluated uptake and usage of a novel Dutch web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid within the Prostate Cancer Patient Centered Care trial. From an estimated total patient sample of 1006 patients, 351 received a decision aid (35% implementation rate; hospital ranges 16%–84%). After receipt of the decision aid, most patients accessed the decision aid, utilized most functions, although not completely, and discussed the decision aid summary in a subsequent consultation with their care provider. Including nurses for dissemination of decision aids seemed to positively affect decision aid uptake. Once received, patients seemed able to use the decision aid and engage in shared decision-making as intended; however, decision aid uptake and complete usage of all decision aid components should be further improved. Prior to the diagnosis consultation, handing out of the decision aid should be prepared.

Development of a Decision Aid for Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery in Transmen

BACKGROUND

As genital gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is a demanding and life-changing intervention, transmen should be able to make choices about the surgical treatment based on outcomes that are most important to them, while taking into consideration the concomitant risks involved.

AIM

Develop a decision aid (DA) for genital surgery in transmen (DA-GST) that can assist both transmen and health care professionals (HCPs) in making a well-informed decision about the surgical treatment.

METHODS

A qualitative focus group study was performed. 5 Focus groups were organized with both HCPs and transmen. These were led by an independent professional moderator. Data collected during these focus groups were analyzed to provide content for the DA.

OUTCOMES

To develop content for a DA-GST.

RESULTS

Data collected during the focus groups related to the treatment options, information deemed relevant by transmen, and the arguments for or against each treatment option. Collected items were divided into the following themes: outcome, quality of life, environment, sexuality, and beliefs.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The tool will be useful in assisting both transmen and HCPs in the shared decision-making process regarding genital GAS by exploring which domains are most relevant for each specific individual.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This DA was developed according to an iterative participatory design approach to fit the needs of both transmen and HCPs. Issues that transmen find important and relevant pertaining to genital GAS were translated into arguments that were incorporated in the DA-GST. The study is limited by the group that had participated. Not all arguments for or against specific surgical options may be covered by the DA-GST.

CONCLUSION

An online DA was developed to support transmen with their decision-making process concerning all surgical options for removal of reproductive organs and genital GAS. Özer M, Pigot GL, Bouman M-B, et al. Development of a Decision Aid for Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery in Transmen. J Sex Med 2018;15:1041-1048.

"Thanks for Letting Us All Share Your Mammogram Experience Virtually": Developing a Web-Based Hub for Breast Cancer Screening

Background

The decision around whether to attend breast cancer screening can often involve making sense of confusing and contradictory information on its risks and benefits. The Word of Mouth Mammogram e-Network (WoMMeN) project was established to create a Web-based resource to support decision making regarding breast cancer screening. This paper presents data from our user-centered approach in engaging stakeholders (both health professionals and service users) in the design of this Web-based resource. Our novel approach involved creating a user design group within Facebook to allow them access to ongoing discussion between researchers, radiographers, and existing and potential service users.

Objective

This study had two objectives. The first was to examine the utility of an online user design group for generating insight for the creation of Web-based health resources. We sought to explore the advantages and limitations of this approach. The second objective was to analyze what women want from a Web-based resource for breast cancer screening.

Methods

We recruited a user design group on Facebook and conducted a survey within the group, asking questions about design considerations for a Web-based breast cancer screening hub. Although the membership of the Facebook group varied over time, there were 71 members in the Facebook group at the end point of analysis. We next conducted a framework analysis on 70 threads from Facebook and a thematic analysis on the 23 survey responses. We focused additionally on how the themes were discussed by the different stakeholders within the context of the design group.

Results

Two major themes were found across both the Facebook discussion and the survey data: (1) the power of information and (2) the hub as a place for communication and support. Information was considered as empowering but also recognized as threatening. Communication and the sharing of experiences were deemed important, but there was also recognition of potential miscommunication within online discussion. Health professionals and service users expressed the same broad concerns, but there were subtle differences in their opinions. Importantly, the themes were triangulated between the Facebook discussions and the survey data, supporting the validity of an online user design group.

Conclusions

Online user design groups afford a useful method for understanding stakeholder needs. In contrast to focus groups, they afford access to users from diverse geographical locations and traverse time constraints, allowing more follow-ups to responses. The use of Facebook provides a familiar and naturalistic setting for discussion. Although we acknowledge the limitations in the sample, this approach has allowed us to understand the views of stakeholders in the user-centered design of the WoMMeN hub for breast cancer screening.

Effectiveness, cost-utility and implementation of a decision aid for patients with localised prostate cancer and their partners: study protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patient decision aids (PDAs) have been developed to help patients make an informed choice for a treatment option. Despite proven benefits, structural implementation falls short of expectations. The present study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-utility of the PDA among newly diagnosed patients with localised prostate cancer and their partners, alongside implementation of the PDA in routine care.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial will be conducted. The PDA will be sequentially implemented in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands, over a period of 24 months. Every 3 or 6 months, a new cluster of hospitals will switch from usual care to care including a PDA.The primary outcome measure is decisional conflict experienced by the patient. Secondary outcomes comprise the patient's quality of life, treatment preferences, role in the decision making, expectations of treatment, knowledge, need for supportive care and decision regret. Furthermore, societal cost-utility will be valued. Other outcome measures considered are the partner's treatment preferences, experienced participation to decision making, quality of life, communication between patient, partner and health care professional, and the effect of prostate cancer on the relationship, social contacts and their role as caregiver. Patients and partners receiving the PDA will also be asked about their satisfaction with the PDA.Baseline assessment takes place after the treatment choice and before the start of a treatment, with follow-up assessments at 3, 6 and 12 months following the end of treatment or the day after deciding on active surveillance. Outcome measures on implementation include the implementation rate (defined as the proportion of all eligible patients who will receive a PDA) and a questionnaire for health care professionals on determinants of implementing an innovation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be conducted in accordance with local laws and regulations of the Medical Ethics Committee of VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The results from this stepped-wedge trial will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Nederlands Trial Register NTR TC5177, registration date: May 28th 2015.Pre-results.

Heteronormativity and prostate cancer: A discursive paper

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To discuss the risks that heteronormative assumptions play in prostate cancer care and how these may be addressed.

BACKGROUND

There is international evidence to support the case that LGBT patients with cancer are less likely to report poor health or self-disclose sexual orientation. Gender-specific cancers, such as prostate cancer, require particular interventions in terms of supportive care. These may include advice about side-effect management (such as incontinence or erectile dysfunction), treatment choices and social and emotional issues. In this paper, we discuss and analyse the heteronormative assumptions and culture that exist around this cancer. We argue that this situation may act as a barrier to effective supportive care for all Lesbian women, Gay, Transgender and Bisexual patients, in this case men who have sex with men. [Correction added on 21 September 2017, after first online publication: The first sentence of the Background section has been revised for clarity in this current version.] DESIGN: Theoretical exploration of heteronormativity considered against the clinical context of prostate cancer.

METHODS

Identification and inclusion of relevant international evidence combined with clinical discussion.

RESULTS

This paper posits a number of questions around heteronormativity in relation to prostate cancer information provision, supportive care and male sexuality. While assumptions regarding sexual orientation should be avoided in clinical encounters, this may be difficult when heteronormative assumptions dominate. Existing research supports the assertion that patient experience, including the needs of LGBT patients, should be central to service developments.

CONCLUSION

Assumptions about sexual orientation should be avoided and recorded accurately and sensitively, and relational models of care should be promoted at the start of cancer treatment in an appropriate manner. These may assist in reducing the risks of embarrassment or offence to nonheterosexual patients, or to professionals who may adopt heteronormative assumptions.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Having an awareness of the risks of making heteronormative assumptions in clinical practice will be useful for all health professionals engaged in prostate cancer care. This awareness can prevent embarrassment or upset for patients and ensure a more equitable provision of service, including men with prostate cancer who do not identify as heterosexual.

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.