Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?

Presenting decision-relevant numerical information to Dutch women aged 50-70 with varying levels of health literacy: Case example of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

If communicated adequately, numerical decision-relevant information can support informed and shared decision making. Visual formats are recommended, but which format supports patients depending on their health literacy (HL) levels for specific decisions is unclear.

STUDY AIM

The aim of this study is to investigate: 1) the effect of survival rates and side-effects presentation formats on comprehension and 'feeling informed'; 2) differential effects among women with higher/lower HL, with adjuvant systemic breast cancer therapy as case example.

METHODS

Two online experiments among women from the Dutch population without a history of breast cancer were conducted. Experiment 1 had a 3 (survival rate format: text block-bar graph-icon array) x 2 (HL: low-high) between-subjects design. Experiment 2 had a 5 (side-effects format: no probability information-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation accompanied by a description of the side-effects) x 2 (HL: low-high) design. Primary outcomes were comprehension and feeling informed (Experiment 2 only). Formats were previously designed in co-creation with patients.

RESULTS

In Experiment 1, presentation format did not affect gist or verbatim comprehension. Higher HL was associated with higher gist comprehension. Experiment 2 showed an interaction between presentation format and HL on 'feeling informed'. When provided with visualised probability information without a description of the side-effects, women with lower HL felt better informed than women with higher HL.

CONCLUSION

Visual formats did not enhance comprehension of survival rate information beyond a well-designed text block format. However, none of the formats could overcome HL differences. When designing decision-relevant information, visualisations might not necessarily provide an advantage over structured numerical information for both patients with lower and higher HL. However, a deeper understanding of presenting side-effect information is warranted.

Exploring the MAPPING application to facilitate risk communication and shared decision-making between physicians and patients with gynaecological cancer

This is an observational study in which we evaluated current levels of risk communication (RC) among gynaecological oncologists and their view on the Mapping All Patient Probabilities in Numerical Graphs (MAPPING) application as a possible tool to facilitate RC and shared decision-making (SDM). In part A, we audio-recorded 29 conversations between gynaecological oncologists and patients when discussing treatment options. In part B, interviews were performed with eight gynaecological oncologists.RC and SDM were measured using two observer-based measures, that is, the RC content (RCC) tool (scale 0-2) and the OPTION-5 instrument (scale 0-100). We used CollaboRATE questionnaire (scale 0-10) and a self-developed survey to assess patient-reported RC and SDM. In part B, we evaluated physicians' attitudes regarding the use of the MAPPING application to support RC. Patients were minimally involved in the decision-making process (OPTION-5 25.9%±13.4 RCC 0.21±0.18). Patient-reported SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 9.19±1.79) and patients preferred receiving numeric information, whereas most physicians used qualitative risk terms rather than exact numbers. In part B, gynaecologists had a positive attitude towards the MAPPING application. However, they stated that the app was difficult to use improvement of layout and better implementations are needed.

The influence of written medication reminder on patient experience among older adult patients: a repeat cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Older adult patients are particularly vulnerable to medication-related issues during the discharge process. To enhance medication discharge education and patient experience, a written medication reminder, incorporating crucial medication side effects and warning signs, was implemented in medicine wards. This study aimed to examine the influence of this reminder on patient experience and medication-taking behaviors among older adults in public healthcare settings.

METHODS

Two separate rounds of cross-sectional surveys were conducted before and after the program implementation among different discharged patients in each round. The study enrolled older adult patients aged ≥ 65 or their caregivers discharged from the medical wards of four pilot public hospitals in Hong Kong. A structured questionnaire was administered via telephone within 14 days of the patient's discharge. The survey assessed patients' experience with the provided medication information during discharge, including the clarity, adequacy, and usefulness of the information, as well as their overall experience with inpatient services. The self-reported medication-taken behaviors, including adherence and side-effect encounters, were also measured.

RESULTS

A total of 1,265 responses were collected before the implementation of the medication reminder, and 1,426 responses were obtained after the implementation. Pre/post-implementation survey comparison showed significant improvement in patient experience regarding the clarity of the provided medication information (7.93 ± 1.84 vs. 8.18 ± 1.69, P = 0.002), adequacy (7.92 ± 1.93 vs. 8.15 ± 1.76, P = 0.014), and usefulness (8.06 ± 1.80 vs. 8.26 ± 1.70, P = 0.017), significantly positive experience on the overall discharge information (β coefficient, 0.43 [95%CI, 0.30 to 0.56]) and inpatient service (β coefficient, 0.47 [95%CI, 0.32 to 0.61]). In addition, the side effects encounters were significantly lower in the post-implementation survey group (11.6% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.04) and no statistical difference was found in self-reported medication adherence between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of written medication reminders on key medication risks effectively improved older adult patients' experience and reduced side effects without any unintended negative consequences. The findings can serve as a reference for similar settings seeking to enhance post-discharge care among older adult patients. Future studies could investigate the influence in other specialties and age groups and include clinical outcomes to test the program's effectiveness.

Patient Perceptions of Standardized Risk Language Used in ACR Prostate MRI PI-RADS Scores

INTRODUCTION

Prostate MRI reports use standardized language to describe risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) from "equivocal" (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 3), "likely" (PI-RADS 4), to "highly likely" (PI-RADS 5). These terms correspond to risks of 11%, 37%, and 70% according to American Urological Association guidelines, respectively. We assessed how men perceive risk associated with standardized PI-RADS language.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a crowdsourced survey of 1,204 men matching a US prostate cancer demographic. We queried participants' risk perception associated with standardized PI-RADS language across increasing contexts: words only, PI-RADS sentence, full report, and full report with numeric estimate. Median perceived risk (interquartile range) and absolute under/overestimation compared with American Urological Association standards were reported. Multivariable linear mixed-effects analysis identified factors associated with accuracy of risk perception.

RESULTS

Median perceived risks of csPCa (interquartile range) for the word-only context were "equivocal" 50% (50%-74%), "likely" 75% (68%-85%), and "highly likely" 87% (78%-92%), corresponding to +39%, +38%, and +17% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the PI-RADS-sentence context were 50% (50%-50%), 75% (68%-81%), and 90% (80%-94%) for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, corresponding to +39%, +38%, and +20% overestimation, respectively. Median perceived risks for the full-report context were 50% (35%-70%), 72% (50%-80%), and 84% (54%-91%) for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, corresponding to +39%, +35%, and +14% overestimation, respectively. For the full-report-with-numeric-estimate context describing a PI-RADS 4 lesion, median perceived risk was 70% (50%-%80), corresponding to +33% overestimation. Including numeric estimates increased correct perception of risk from 3% to 11% (P < .001), driven by men with higher numeracy (odds ratio 1.24, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Men overestimate risk of csPCa associated with standardized PI-RADS language regardless of context, especially for PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions. Changes to PI-RADS language or data-sharing policies for imaging reports should be considered.

Radiation Dose-Volume-Response Relationships for Adverse Events in Childhood Cancer Survivors: Introduction to the Scientific Issues in PENTEC

At its very core, radiation oncology involves a trade-off between the benefits and risks of exposing tumors and normal tissue to relatively high doses of ionizing radiation. This trade-off is particularly critical in childhood cancer survivors (CCS), in whom both benefits and risks can be hugely consequential due to the long life expectancy if the primary cancer is controlled. Estimating the normal tissue-related risks of a specific radiation therapy plan in an individual patient relies on predictive mathematical modeling of empirical data on adverse events. The Pediatric Normal-Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) collaborative network was formed to summarize and, when possible, to synthesize dose-volume-response relationships for a range of adverse events incident in CCS based on the literature. Normal-tissue clinical radiation biology in children is particularly challenging for many reasons: (1) Childhood malignancies are relatively uncommon-constituting approximately 1% of new incident cancers in the United States-and biologically heterogeneous, leading to many small series in the literature and large variability within and between series. This creates challenges in synthesizing data across series. (2) CCS are at an elevated risk for a range of adverse health events that are not specific to radiation therapy. Thus, excess relative or absolute risk compared with a reference population becomes the appropriate metric. (3) Various study designs and quantities to express risk are found in the literature, and these are summarized. (4) Adverse effects in CCS often occur 30, 50, or more years after therapy. This limits the information content of series with even very extended follow-up, and lifetime risk estimates are typically extrapolations that become dependent on the mathematical model used. (5) The long latent period means that retrospective dosimetry is required, as individual computed tomography-based radiation therapy plans gradually became available after 1980. (6) Many individual patient-level factors affect outcomes, including age at exposure, attained age, lifestyle exposures, health behaviors, other treatment modalities, dose, fractionation, and dose distribution. (7) Prospective databases with individual patient-level data and radiation dosimetry are being built and will facilitate advances in dose-volume-response modeling. We discuss these challenges and attempts to overcome them in the setting of PENTEC.

The use of outcome data in patient consultations from the healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on the use of outcome data in consultations and to understand which aggregated outcomes patients find important.

METHODS

This study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of two steps: RESULTS: HCPs indicated that aggregated outcome data are not routinely used in consultations. They pointed out various barriers to using outcome data, e.g., low response rates of PROMs, and suggested actions to address these barriers, including training of HCPs in outcome data usage. Patients rated the majority of aggregated outcomes as important, although preferences differed between the studied health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Both HCPs and patients underscored the importance of discussing outcome data in consultations. Nevertheless, HCPs encountered several barriers to using outcome data. Furthermore, patients with different health conditions have somewhat different information needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study identified several actionable steps to enhance the collection and application of outcome data in consultations.

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.

Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information

Background

Statistical information (e.g., on long-term survival or side effects) may be valuable for healthcare providers to share with their patients to facilitate shared decision making on treatment options. In this pre-registered study, we assessed cancer survivors’ need for generic (population-based) versus personalized (tailored towards patient/tumor characteristics) statistical information after their diagnosis. We examined how information coping style, subjective numeracy, and anxiety levels of survivors relate to these needs and identified statistical need profiles. Additionally, we qualitatively explored survivors’ considerations for (not) wanting statistical information.

Methods

Cancer survivors’ need for statistics regarding incidence, survival, recurrence, side effects and quality of life were assessed with an online questionnaire. For each of these topics, survivors were asked to think back to their first cancer diagnosis and to indicate their need for generic and personalized statistics on a 4-point scale (‘not at all’- ‘very much’). Associations between information coping style, subjective numeracy, and anxiety with need for generic and personalized statistics were examined with Pearson’s correlations. Statistical need profiles were identified using latent class analysis. Considerations for (not) wanting statistics were analyzed qualitatively.

Results

Overall, cancer survivors (n = 174) had a higher need for personalized than for generic statistics (p < .001, d = 0.74). Need for personalized statistics was associated with higher subjective numeracy (r = .29) and an information-seeking coping style (r = .41). Three statistical need profiles were identified (1) a strong need for both generic and personalized statistics (34%), (2) a stronger need for personalized than for generic statistics (55%), and (3) a little need for both generic and personalized statistics (11%). Considerations for wanting personalized cancer statistics ranged from feelings of being in control to making better informed decisions about treatment. Considerations for not wanting statistics related to negative experience with statistics and to the unpredictability of future events for individual patients.

Conclusions

In light of the increased possibilities for using personalized statistics in clinical practice and decision aids, it appears that most cancer survivors want personalized statistical information during treatment decision-making. Subjective numeracy and information coping style seem important factors influencing this need. We encourage further development and implementation of data-driven personalized decision support technologies in oncological care to support patients in treatment decision making.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02005-2.

Communication, perception, and use of personalized side-effect risks in prostate cancer treatment-decision making: An observational and interview study

OBJECTIVE

We investigated how healthcare professionals (HPs) communicate personalized risks of treatment side-effects to patients with localized prostate cancer during consultations, and explored how these patients perceive and use such risks during treatment decision-making.

METHODS

Patient consultations with nurse practitioners and urologists discussing personalized risks of urinary incontinence after prostatectomy were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients (n = 27) were then interviewed to explore their perceptions and use of personalized side-effect risks.

RESULTS

HPs explained personalized risks by discussing risk factors, which was appreciated and recalled by patients. Personalized risks were typically communicated both numerically and verbally (70%). When using numbers, HPs always used percentages, but rarely used natural frequencies (14%). Uncertainty was disclosed in only 34% of consultations. One-third of patients used personalized risks in their treatment decision-making by either switching to another treatment or sticking to their initial preference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients value and use personalized side-effect risks during treatment decision-making. Clearly explaining the relationship between risk factors and personalized risk estimates may help patients understand and recall those. Practice implications HPs should not only give patients specific and precise numerical risk information, but should also put effort in explaining how the personalized side-effect risks are determined.

Cocreation with Dutch patients of decision-relevant information to support shared decision-making about adjuvant treatment in breast cancer care

BACKGROUND

To support patients in shared decision-making about treatment options, patient decision aids (PtDAs) usually provide benefit/harm information and value clarification methods (VCMs). Recently, personalized risk information from prediction models is also being integrated into PtDAs. This study aimed to design decision-relevant information (i.e., personalized survival rates, harm information and VCMs) about adjuvant breast cancer treatment in cocreation with patients, in a way that suits their needs and is easily understandable.

METHODS

Three cocreation sessions with breast cancer patients (N = 7-10; of whom N = 5 low health literate) were performed. Participants completed creative assignments and evaluated prototypes of benefit/harm information and VCMs. Prototypes were further explored through user testing with patients (N = 10) and healthcare providers (N = 10). The researchers interpreted the collected data, for example, creative and homework assignments, and participants' presentations, to identify key themes. User tests were transcribed and analysed using ATLAS.ti to assess the understanding of the prototypes.

RESULTS

Important information needs were: (a) need for overview/structure of information directly after diagnosis and; (b) need for transparent benefit/harm information for all treatment options, including detailed harm information. Regarding VCMs, patients stressed the importance of a summary/conclusion. A bar graph seemed the most appropriate way of displaying personalized survival rates; the impact of most other formats was perceived as too distressful. The concept of 'personalization' was not understood by multiple patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A PtDA about adjuvant breast cancer treatment should provide patients with an overview of the steps and treatment options, with layers for detailed information. Transparent information about the likelihood of benefits and harm should be provided. Given the current lack of information on the likelihood of side effects/late effects, efforts should be made to collect and share these data with patients. Further quantitative studies are needed to validate the results and to investigate how the concept of 'personalization' can be communicated.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Ten breast cancer patients participated in three cocreation sessions to develop decision-relevant information. Subsequent user testing included 10 patients. The Dutch Breast Cancer Association (BVN) was involved as an advisor in the general study design.

Exploring Cancer Survivor Needs and Preferences for Communicating Personalized Cancer Statistics From Registry Data: Qualitative Multimethod Study

Background

Disclosure of cancer statistics (eg, survival or incidence rates) based on a representative group of patients can help increase cancer survivors’ understanding of their own diagnostic and prognostic situation, and care planning. More recently, there has been an increasing interest in the use of cancer registry data for disclosing and communicating personalized cancer statistics (tailored toward personal and clinical characteristics) to cancer survivors and relatives.

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore breast cancer (BCa) and prostate cancer (PCa) survivor needs and preferences for disclosing (what) and presenting (how) personalized statistics from a large Dutch population-based data set, the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR).

Methods

To elicit survivor needs and preferences for communicating personalized NCR statistics, we created different (non)interactive tools visualizing hypothetical scenarios and adopted a qualitative multimethod study design. We first conducted 2 focus groups (study 1; n=13) for collecting group data on BCa and PCa survivor needs and preferences, using noninteractive sketches of what a tool for communicating personalized statistics might look like. Based on these insights, we designed a revised interactive tool, which was used to further explore the needs and preferences of another group of cancer survivors during individual think-aloud observations and semistructured interviews (study 2; n=11). All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, analyzed using thematic (focus groups) and content analysis (think-aloud observations), and reported in compliance with qualitative research reporting criteria.

Results

In both studies, cancer survivors expressed the need to receive personalized statistics from a representative source, with especially a need for survival and conditional survival rates (ie, survival rate for those who have already survived for a certain period). Personalized statistics adjusted toward personal and clinical factors were deemed more relevant and useful to know than generic or average-based statistics. Participants also needed support for correctly interpreting the personalized statistics and putting them into perspective, for instance by adding contextual or comparative information. Furthermore, while thinking aloud, participants experienced a mix of positive (sense of hope) and negative emotions (feelings of distress) while viewing the personalized survival data. Overall, participants preferred simplicity and conciseness, and the ability to tailor the type of visualization and amount of (detailed) statistical information.

Conclusions

The majority of our sample of cancer survivors wanted to receive personalized statistics from the NCR. Given the variation in patient needs and preferences for presenting personalized statistics, designers of similar information tools may consider potential tailoring strategies on multiple levels, as well as effective ways for providing supporting information to make sure that the personalized statistics are properly understood. This is encouraging for cancer registries to address this unmet need, but also for those who are developing or implementing personalized data-driven information tools for patients and relatives.