ProsCan for men: randomised controlled trial of a decision support intervention for men with localised prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer Survivorship Essentials for men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a tele-based nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials Hormone Therapy Study)

INTRODUCTION

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Men receiving ADT experience numerous side effects and frequently report unmet supportive care needs. An essential part of quality cancer care is survivorship care. To date, an optimal effective approach to survivorship care for men with prostate cancer on ADT has not been described. This protocol describes a randomised trial of tele-based nurse-led survivorship that addresses this knowledge gap: (1) determine the effectiveness of a nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials), relative to usual care, for improving health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT and (2) evaluate PCEssentials implementation strategies and outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, compared with usual care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 1) trial with participants randomised to one of two arms: (1) minimally enhanced usual care and (2) nurse-led prostate cancer survivorship essentials (PCEssentials) delivered over four tele-based sessions, with a booster session 5 months after session 1. Eligible participants are Australian men with prostate cancer commencing ADT and expected to be on ADT for a minimum of 12 months. Participants are followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months postrecruitment. Primary outcomes are HR-QoL and self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes are psychological distress, insomnia, fatigue and physical activity. A concurrent process evaluation with participants and study stakeholders will be undertaken to determine effectiveness of delivery of PCEssentials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the Metro South Health HREC (HREC/2021/QMS/79429). All participants are required to provide written informed consent. Outcomes of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will be presented at conferences and meetings, local hospital departments, participating organisations/clinical services, and university seminars, and communicated at community and consumer-led forums.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622000025730.

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.

Psychosocial adjustment and its influencing factors among head and neck cancer survivors after radiotherapy: A cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Psychosocial adjustment is an important issue in patients' long-term survival. Understanding psychosocial adjustment and its influencing factors in head and neck cancer survivors after radiotherapy is essential to help them return to society and lead a normal life. The purpose of this study was to describe the level of psychosocial adjustment and explore its influencing factors in head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS

Between May 2019 and May 2022, 253 head and neck cancer survivors at a tertiary hospital in northeast China were enrolled in a cross-sectional study. The research instruments comprised the Demographic and Clinical Characteristics Questionnaire, the Self-report Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS-SR), the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES), the Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) and the M.D. Anderson Symptom Survey-head and neck Questionnaire (MDASI-H&N).

RESULTS

The mean PAIS-SR score was 42.31 ± 16.70 (moderate). The multiple regression model revealed that 73.2% of the variance in psychosocial adjustment was explained by marital status (β = -0.114, P = 0.005), return to work or not (β = -0.275, P < 0.01), self-efficacy (β = -0.327, P < 0.01), subjective support (β = -0.106, P = 0.043), utilization of support (β = -0.172, P < 0.01), and trouble with symptoms in daily life (β = 0.138, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

The psychosocial adjustment of head and neck cancer survivors after radiotherapy is an issue that needs to be addressed, and medical staff should develop effective, individualized interventions to improve their psychosocial adjustment by increasing their social support, improving their self-efficacy and strengthening symptom management according to their actual situation.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

A Plasma Biomarker Panel of Four MicroRNAs for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is diagnosed in over 1 million men every year globally, yet current diagnostic modalities are inadequate for identification of significant cancer and more reliable early diagnostic biomarkers are necessary for improved clinical management of prostate cancer patients. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) modulate important cellular processes/pathways contributing to cancer and are stably present in body fluids. In this study we profiled 372 cancer-associated miRNAs in plasma collected before (~60% patients) and after/during commencement of treatment (~40% patients), from age-matched prostate cancer patients and healthy controls, and observed elevated levels of 4 miRNAs - miR-4289, miR-326, miR-152-3p and miR-98-5p, which were validated in an independent cohort. The miRNA panel was able to differentiate between prostate cancer patients and controls (AUC = 0.88). Analysis of published miRNA transcriptomic data from clinical samples demonstrated low expression of miR-152-3p in tumour compared to adjacent non-malignant tissues. Overexpression of miR-152-3p increased proliferation and migration of prostate cancer cells, suggesting a role for this miRNA in prostate cancer pathogenesis, a concept that was supported by pathway analysis of predicted miR-152-3p target genes. In summary, a four miRNA panel, including miR-152-3p which likely targets genes with key roles in prostate cancer pathogenesis, has the potential to improve early prostate cancer diagnosis.

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.

Challenges to treat hypogonadism in prostate cancer patients: implications for endocrinologists, urologists and radiotherapists

The literature suggests that the serum testosterone level required for maximum androgen receptor (AR) binding may be in the range of nanomolar and above this range of concentrations; this sexual hormone may not significantly affect tumour biology. This assumption is supported by clinical studies showing that cell proliferation markers did not change when serum T levels increased after exogenous T treatment in comparison to subjects treated with placebo. However, a considerable part of the global scientific community remains sceptical regarding the use of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) in men suffering from hypogonadism and prostate cancer (Pca). The negative attitudes with respect to testosterone supplementation in men with hypogonadism and Pca may be justified by the relatively low number of clinical and preclinical studies that specifically dealt with how androgens affect Pca biology. More controversial still is the use of TRT in men in active surveillance or at intermediate or high risk of recurrence and treated by curative radiotherapy. In these clinical scenarios, clinicians should be aware that safety data regarding TRT are scanty limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions on this important topic. In this review we critically discuss the newest scientific evidence concerning the new challenges in the treatment of men with hypogonadal condition and Pca providing new insights in the pharmacological and psychological approaches.

Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions

BACKGROUND

Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical healthNine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence).Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84).We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies).A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological healthSix studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group.Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health statusTen studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not.Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilitiesNine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence).A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomesPooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52).We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning.The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.

Psychosocial Oncology Supports for Men: A Scoping Review and Recommendations

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

Classifying the reasons men consider to be important in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions: evaluating risks, lay beliefs, and informed decisions

BACKGROUND

Despite uncertainty regarding the benefits of prostate cancer screening, many men have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify classes of reasons guiding men's decisions about prostate cancer screening and predict reasoning approaches by family history and prior screening behaviour.

METHODS

First-degree relatives of men with prostate cancer (n = 207) and men from the general population (n = 239) of Australia listed reasons they considered when deciding whether to have a PSA test.

RESULTS

Responses were coded into 31 distinct categories. Latent class analysis identified three classes. The evaluation of risk information cues class (20.9 %) contained a greater number of men with a family history (compared with control and overcome cancer/risk class; 52.7 %). Informed decisions and health system class (26.5 %) included a lower proportion of men who had had a PSA test and greater proportions of highly educated and married men.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the reasons underlying men's screening decisions may lead to a more effective information provision and decision support.

Psychosocial interventions to support partners of men with prostate cancer: a systematic and critical review of the literature

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer poses many challenges for both the man and his partner. Partners have reported a range of issues that impact their own mental health following their partner's diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this review is to summarise and critically evaluate the current literature reporting psychosocial intervention studies for partners of prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

An extensive literature search of electronic databases was conducted (OvidMEDLINE 1946, 26th September 2013, and psychINFO 1967, 26th September 2013) using the keywords prostate cancer AND intervention* OR therapy* OR psychosocial intervention* OR support* AND couple* or Spouse* or Partner* or Intimate partner* matched to the title as well as secondary scanning of reference lists. Studies were included if they described interventions for partners of prostate cancer patients, either solely for the partners or as a couple, intended to alleviate distress and enhance the partner's or couple's quality of life, and reported a measurable outcome for partners.

RESULTS

A total of 11 prostate cancer-specific intervention studies that included partners and reported separate results for the partners were found. Only one of these interventions was partner specific, the other eight involved the patient-partner dyad. The studies identified primarily focussed on two areas: emotional distress and sexual intimacy, and mixed findings were reported for efficacy of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite strong evidence that partners of men with prostate cancer experience difficulties associated with the impact of prostate cancer, there is limited research that has investigated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for partners. Of the reviewed studies, it is evident that interventions targeting the reduction of emotional distress, improved communication and sexual intimacy between the couple and utilisation of strategies that enable partners to express their distress, learn new strategies and implement behavioural change show the most promising results in enhancing partner well-being.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Significant progress is required in developing and evaluating appropriate and effective psychosocial support interventions for partners of prostate cancer survivors as partners appear to have significant unmet needs in this area.

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.

The validity of the distress thermometer in prostate cancer populations

Background

The Distress Thermometer (DT) is widely recommended for screening for distress after cancer. However, the validity of the DT in men with prostate cancer and over differing time points from diagnosis has not been well examined.

Method

Receiver operating characteristics analyses were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the DT compared with three commonly used standardised scales in two prospective and one cross-sectional survey of men with prostate cancer (n = 740, 189 and 463, respectively). Comparison scales included the Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-R, Study 1), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, Study 2) and the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18, Study 3).

Results

Study 1: the DT showed good accuracy against the IES-R at all time points (area under curves (AUCs) ranging from 0.84 to 0.88) and sensitivity was high (>85%). Study 2: the DT performed well against both the anxiety and depression subscales for HADS at baseline (AUC = 0.84 and 0.82, respectively), but sensitivity decreased substantially after 12 months. Study 3: validity was high for the anxiety (AUC = 0.90, sensitivity = 90%) and depression (AUC = 0.85, sensitivity = 74%) subscales of the BSI-18 but was poorer for somatization (AUC = 0.67, sensitivity = 52%). A DT cut-off between ≥3 and ≥6 maximised sensitivity and specificity across analyses.

Conclusions

The DT is a valid tool to detect cancer-specific distress, anxiety and depression among prostate cancer patients, particularly close to diagnosis. A cut-off of ≥4 may be optimal soon after diagnosis, and for longer-term assessments, ≥3 was supported.

Prevalence and predictors of cancer specific distress in men with a family history of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine prevalence and predictors of cancer-specific distress in undiagnosed men with and without a family history of prostate cancer, and to examine the contribution of perceptions of an affected relative's cancer experience on the distress of unaffected male relatives.

METHODS

Men with a first degree relative with prostate cancer (n = 207) and men without a family history (n = 239) from Australia completed a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview. Participants completed the Prostate Cancer Anxiety Subscale of the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer, measures of perceived risk, and socio-demographic information. Men with a family history provided details about their family history (number of relatives diagnosed with and dead from prostate cancer, relationship to affected relative, months since diagnosis) and reported their perceptions of their affected relative's prostate cancer experience including perceptions of threat related to the relative's diagnosis and perceived treatment phase and prognosis.

RESULTS

Cancer-specific distress was low for all men and there was no significant difference in the distress experienced by men with and without a family history. Regression analyses showed that for all men, cancer-specific distress increased with urinary symptoms and decreased in those with higher education and in older participants. For men with a family history, having a relative who died from prostate cancer and perceiving greater threat from a relative's diagnosis was associated with greater cancer-specific distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions would benefit from examining appraisals of familial risk and examining prospective assessments of distress in the unaffected male relatives of men with prostate cancer over the course of the cancer trajectory.

Can colorectal cancer survivors recall their medications and doctor visits reliably?

Background

The evidence on the agreement between self-reported health resource use and administrative records is mixed and no gold standard exists. The objective of this study was to assess self-reported general practitioner (GP) and specialist doctor visits, as well as medication use via telephone interview against national insurance administrative data for colorectal cancer survivors.

Methods

In a sample of 76 adults recently diagnosed with colorectal cancer, data was abstracted from telephone survey items on GP visits, specialist visits and medication use over the previous six months and compared with data on the same individuals from administrative data. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess the reliability of frequency of visits and kappa statistics were derived for four broad categories of medicines used for gastrointestinal conditions, cardiovascular disease, psychological conditions and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Logistic regression was undertaken to assess factors associated with agreement (yes/no) between the two data sources for doctors’ visits.

Results

Good agreement was found for GP visits (ICC 0.62, 95%CI: 0.38, 0.86) and specialist visits (ICC 0.73, 95%CI: 0.56, 0.91) across the two data sources. When costs were assigned to frequencies, mean costs for the two methods were not significantly different over six months. Over-reporting was more common among men and participants with frequent doctor encounters. Large discrepancies between self-reports and administration records were found for broad types of medications used (44% agreement, kappa 0.13).

Conclusion

Self-reported frequency of doctor’s visits using telephone interviews may be a reasonable substitute for administratively recorded data however, medication use by self-report appears to be unreliable. Administrative records are preferable to self-report for health service use in colorectal cancer survivors with high and complex service needs.

Intervening to improve psychological outcomes for men with prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the Western world with well-described negative effects from treatments. However, outcomes are highly heterogeneous. A Phase 3 trial of a psycho-educational intervention was undertaken, aiming to reduce cancer-specific and decision-related distress and improve quality of life for men newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer.

METHODS

Seven hundred forty (81.7%) men were recruited after diagnosis and before treatment and randomised to a tele-based nurse-delivered five-session psycho-educational intervention (N = 372) or usual care (N = 368). Participants were assessed before treatment and 2, 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment. Outcome measures included cancer-specific and decision-related distress, cognitive judgmental adjustment, subjective well-being, and domain-specific and health-related quality of life. Social support was assessed as a potential moderator.

RESULTS

No unconditioned effects were found. Classification analyses on pre-randomisation measures distinguished three subgroups: younger, higher education and income men (N =  90); younger, lower education and income men (N = 106); and older men (N = 344). Younger, higher education and income men showed positive intervention effects for cancer-specific distress (p = 0.008) and mental health (p = 0.042). By contrast, for younger, lower education men, participation in the intervention was associated with decreases in cognitive judgmental adjustment over time (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Response to intervention and adjustment over time varied according to previous sexual functioning, age, educational level and income. How to best intervene with younger, low education, low income men with prostate cancer is a critical future research question.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Of 34,316 unique citations, 86 studies involving 20,209 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included. Thirty-one of these studies are new in this update. Twenty-nine trials are ongoing. There was variability in potential risk of bias across studies. The two criteria that were most problematic were lack of blinding and the potential for selective outcome reporting, given that most of the earlier trials were not registered.Of 86 included studies, 63 (73%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: A) criteria involving decision attributes: knowledge scores (51 studies); accurate risk perceptions (16 studies); and informed value-based choice (12 studies); and B) criteria involving decision process attributes: feeling informed (30 studies) and feeling clear about values (18 studies).A) Criteria involving decision attributes:Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions by increasing knowledge (MD 13.77 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.40 to 16.15; n = 26). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simpler decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 4.97 out of 100; 95% CI 3.22 to 6.72; n = 15). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.74; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.08; n = 14). The effect was stronger when probabilities were expressed in numbers (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.37; n = 11) rather than words (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.48; n = 3). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification compared to those without explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients achieving decisions that were informed and consistent with their values (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52; n = 8).B) Criteria involving decision process attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -6.43 of 100; 95% CI -9.16 to -3.70; n = 17); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -4.81; 95% CI -7.23 to -2.40; n = 14); c) reduced the proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.77; n = 11); and d) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; n = 9). Decision aids appear to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in the four studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 12) and/or the decision making process (n = 12), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. There were no studies evaluating the decision process attributes relating to helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made or understand that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomesExposure to decision aids compared to usual care continued to demonstrate reduced choice of: major elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; n = 11). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care also resulted in reduced choice of PSA screening (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; n = 7). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, there was reduced choice of menopausal hormones (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from -8 minutes to +23 minutes (median 2.5 minutes). Decision aids do not appear to be different from comparisons in terms of anxiety (n = 20), and general health outcomes (n = 7), and condition specific health outcomes (n = 9). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Mindfulness groups for men with advanced prostate cancer: a pilot study to assess feasibility and effectiveness and the role of peer support

PURPOSE

Men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer experience higher psychological distress and greater unmet supportive care needs than men with localized disease. A mindfulness-based cognitive therapy group intervention was pilot tested for acceptability and effectiveness in this patient group.

METHODS

Nineteen men were initially recruited to three groups and 12 completed final assessments. Outcomes assessed included anxiety, depression, cancer-related distress, prostate cancer-specific quality of life, and mindfulness skills at baseline, immediately, and 3 months post-intervention. Satisfaction measures and in-depth interviews were undertaken post-intervention to describe men's personal experiences of the groups.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were observed for anxiety (p = 0.027), avoidance (p = 0.032), and mindfulness skills (p = 0.019), with a trend for a reduction in fear of cancer recurrence (p = 0.062). Effect sizes were moderate to large. A shared group identity, acceptance of, and learning from other group members were key aspects of the group context that contributed to acceptance of progressive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Mindfulness-based group interventions appear to have utility in this patient group and show promise for reducing anxiety, avoidance, and fear of cancer recurrence. Peer learning appeared to be helpful in generating acceptance of advancing disease.

Self-management for men surviving prostate cancer: a review of behavioural and psychosocial interventions to understand what strategies can work, for whom and in what circumstances

OBJECTIVE

In the context of increasing prostate cancer survivorship, evidence of unmet supportive care needs and growing economic health-care restraints, this review examined and evaluated best approaches for developing self-management programmes to meet men's survivorship needs.

METHODS

A search of international literature published in the last 12 years was conducted. Only randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis. Key components of the interventions were evaluated to determine what has been offered, and which elements are most beneficial in improving health outcomes. Methodological issues were also considered.

RESULTS

Targeting participant need and promoting motivation to participate and maintain programme adherence were the most important factors to emerge in ensuring positive health outcomes. Both need and motivation are multi-faceted, the components of which are identified and evaluated. Guidance was also identified in relation to delivery design, theoretical mechanisms for change, modes of delivery and facilitator issues.

CONCLUSION

Self-management is a viable and appropriate way of providing health-care solutions to ameliorate men's functional and emotional problems associated with increased prostate cancer survivorship. Integration into clinical practice will require training, resources and commitment and, in addition, economic viability will be difficult to assess since cost comparison with current provision is not straightforward. Nevertheless, from the psychosocial and behavioural studies reviewed there is convincing evidence that can be used to design, implement and evaluate future self-management programmes for men surviving prostate cancer.

Diagnostic and treatment pathways for men with prostate cancer in Queensland: investigating spatial and demographic inequalities

Background

Patterns of diagnosis and management for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Queensland, Australia, have not yet been systematically documented and so assumptions of equity are untested. This longitudinal study investigates the association between prostate cancer diagnostic and treatment outcomes and key area-level characteristics and individual-level demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors.

Methods/Design

A total of 1064 men diagnosed with prostate cancer between February 2005 and July 2007 were recruited through hospital-based urology outpatient clinics and private practices in the centres of Brisbane, Townsville and Mackay (82% of those referred). Additional clinical and diagnostic information for all 6609 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Queensland during the study period was obtained via the population-based Queensland Cancer Registry.

Respondent data are collected using telephone and self-administered questionnaires at pre-treatment and at 2 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, 48 months and 60 months post-treatment. Assessments include demographics, medical history, patterns of care, disease and treatment characteristics together with outcomes associated with prostate cancer, as well as information about quality of life and psychological adjustment. Complementary detailed treatment information is abstracted from participants' medical records held in hospitals and private treatment facilities and collated with health service utilisation data obtained from Medicare Australia. Information about the characteristics of geographical areas is being obtained from data custodians such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Geo-coding and spatial technology will be used to calculate road travel distances from patients' residences to treatment centres. Analyses will be conducted using standard statistical methods along with multilevel regression models including individual and area-level components.

Conclusions

Information about the diagnostic and treatment patterns of men diagnosed with prostate cancer is crucial for rational planning and development of health delivery and supportive care services to ensure equitable access to health services, regardless of geographical location and individual characteristics.

This study is a secondary outcome of the randomised controlled trial registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000233426)