When study site contributes to outcomes in a multi-center randomized trial: a secondary analysis of decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer

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.

Decisional Conflict is Associated with Treatment Modality and not Disease Knowledge in South African Men with Prostate Cancer: Baseline Results from a Longitudinal Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Decisional conflict (DC) is a psychological construct that an individual experiences in making a decision that involves risk, loss, regret, or challenges to one's values. This study assessed DC in a cohort of South African men undergoing curative treatment for localised prostate cancer (LPC). The objectives were to (1) to examine the association between DC and prostate cancer knowledge (PCK), demographics, state anxiety, prostate cancer anxiety and time to treatment and (2) to compare levels of DC between treatment groups [prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiation (RT)].

METHOD

Data, comprising the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Prostate Cancer Knowledge (PCK), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S), the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) and demographic data from 83 participants of a larger prospective longitudinal observational study examining depression, anxiety and health related quality of life (DAHCaP) were analysed.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 63 years (RP 61yrs and RT 65yrs; p< 0.001). Most were of mixed ancestry (72.3%). The total DCS scores between the treatment groups (RP 25.00 and RT 18.75; p = 0.037) and two DCS sub-scores-uncertainty (p = 0.033), and support (p = 0.048), were significantly higher in the RP group. A statistically significant negative correlation was observed between state anxiety and time between diagnosis and treatment in the RP group (Spearman's rho = -0.368; p = 0.030). There was no correlation between the DCS score and PCK within each treatment group (Spearman's rho RP = -0.249 and RT = -0.001).

CONCLUSION

Decisional conflict was higher in men undergoing RP. Men were more anxious in the RP group regarding the time treatment was received from diagnosis. No correlation was observed between DC and PCK. Pre-surgical management of DC should include shared decision making (SDM) which is cognisant of patients' values facilitated by a customised decision aid.

Mobile Audio Recording Technology to Promote Informed Decision Making in Advanced Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer increasingly encounter complex treatment decisions. Consultation audio recordings and summaries promote patient informed decision making but are underutilized. Mobile recording software applications may increase access. Little is known regarding the feasibility of implementation in clinical encounters.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods pilot study in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We instructed patients to use a mobile software application to record an oncology visit. Patients could share the recording with our patient scribing program to receive a written summary. We assessed feasibility and acceptability with postvisit surveys. We measured patient-reported helpfulness of the intervention in decision making and change in Decisional Conflict Scale-informed subscale. We conducted semistructured interviews to explore implementation and analyzed transcripts using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across 20 patients, 18 (90%) recorded their visits. Thirteen of 18 (72%) listened to the recording, and 14 of 18 (78%) received a summary. Eighteen of 20 (90%) visits were telehealth. Fourteen patients (70% of all 20; 78% of 18 question respondents) found the application easy to use. Nine patients (50% of 18 recording patients; 90% of 10 question respondents) reported that the recording helped treatment decision making. Decisional conflict decreased from baseline to 1-week postvisit (47.4-28.5, P < .001). Interviews revealed benefits, facilitators, contextual factors, and technology and patient-related barriers to recordings and summaries.

CONCLUSION

In this single-institution academic setting, a mobile application for patients to record consultations was a feasible, acceptable, and potentially valued intervention that improved decision making in the telehealth setting. Studies in larger, diverse populations are needed.

Decisional conflict in breast cancer patients considering immediate breast reconstruction

Background

Breast cancer (BC) patients who are treated with mastectomy are frequently offered immediate breast reconstruction. This study aimed to assess decisional conflict in patients considering immediate breast reconstruction, and to identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC).

Methods

Baseline data of a multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of an online decision aid for BC patients considering immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy were analyzed. Participants completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, decisional conflict and other patient-reported outcomes related to decision-making such as breast reconstruction preference, knowledge, information resources used, preferred involvement in decision-making, information coping style, and anxiety. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with CSDC (score > 37.5 on decisional conflict).

Results

Of the 250 participants, 68% experienced CSDC. Patients with a slight preference for breast reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) = 6.19, p < .01), with no preference for or against breast reconstruction (OR = 11.84, p < .01), and with a strong preference for no breast reconstruction (OR = 5.20, p < .05) were more likely to experience CSDC than patients with a strong preference for breast reconstruction. Furthermore, patients with more anxiety were more likely to experience CSDC (OR = 1.03, p = .01).

Conclusion

A majority of BC patients who consider immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy experience clinically significant decisional conflict. The findings emphasize the need for decision support, especially for patients who do not have a strong preference for breast reconstruction.

•

A majority of patients considering immediate breast reconstruction experience decisional conflict.

•

Patients without a strong preference for breast reconstruction are more likely to experience decisional conflict.

•

Patients with more anxiety are more likely to experience decisional conflict.

Decisional conflict among adolescents and parents making decisions about genomic sequencing results

Genomic testing of adolescents is increasing yet engaging them in decision-making is not routine. We assessed decisional conflict in adolescents and a parent making independent decisions about actual genomic testing results and factors that influenced their choices. We enrolled 163 dyads consisting of an adolescent (13-17 years) not selected based on a specific clinical indication and one parent. After independently choosing categories of conditions to learn for the adolescent, participants completed the validated Decisional Conflict Scale and a survey assessing factors influencing their respective choices. Adolescents had higher decisional conflict scores than parents (15.6 [IQR:4.7-25.6] vs 9.4 [IQR:1.6-21.9]; P = .0007). Adolescents with clinically significant decisional conflict were less likely to choose to learn all results than adolescents with lower decisional conflict (19.6% vs 80.4%; P < .0001) and less likely to report their choices were influenced by actionability of results (33.3% vs 18.9%; P = .044) and feeling confident they can deal with the results (71.2% vs 91.9%; P = .0005). Our findings suggest higher decisional conflict in adolescents may influence the type and amount of genomic results they wish to learn. Additional research assessing decisional conflict and factors influencing testing choices among adolescents in clinical settings are required.

Factors underlying treatment decision-making for localized prostate cancer in the U.S. and Canada: A scoping review using principal component analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research is to gather, collate, and identify key factors commonly studied in localized prostate cancer (LPC) treatment decision-making in Canada and the U.S.

METHODS

This scoping review uses five databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycInfo) to identify relevant articles using a list of inclusion and exclusion criteria applied by two reviewers. A list of topics describing the themes of the articles was extracted and key factors were identified using principal component analysis (PCA). A word cloud of titles and abstracts of the relevant articles was created to identify complementary results to the PCA.

RESULTS

This review identified 77 relevant articles describing 32 topics related to LPC treatment decision-making. The PCA grouped these 32 topics into five key factors commonly studied in LPC treatment decision-making: 1) treatment type; 2) socioeconomic/demographic characteristics; 3) personal reasons for treatment choice; 4) psychology of treatment decision experience; and 5) level of involvement in the decision-making process. The word cloud identified common phrases that were complementary to the factors identified through the PCA.

CONCLUSIONS

This research identifies several possible factors impacting LPC treatment decision-making. Further research needs to be completed to determine the impact that these factors have in the LPC treatment decision-making experience.

Decisional conflict in mental health care: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Decisional conflict refers to the degree to which patients are engaged in and feel comfortable about important clinical decisions. Until now, the concept has received little attention in mental health care. We investigate the level of decisional conflict in mental health care and whether this is influenced by socio-demographics, treatment setting, diagnoses, and locus of control.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study among 186 patients in Dutch specialist mental health care using the Decisional Conflict Scale, which measures five dimensions of decisional conflict: information, support, clarification of values, certainty, and decisional quality. Descriptive statistics and forward stepwise linear regression analyses were used.

RESULTS

Patients report relatively high levels of decisional conflict, especially those with more external locus of control. Having a personality disorder and higher education also increases decisional conflict on the dimensions support and clarification of values, respectively. Less decisional conflict was experienced by patients with psychotic disorders on the dimension certainty and by women on the information domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisional conflict is common among patients in specialist mental health care and is very useful for assessing the quality of clinical decision making. Measuring decisional conflict and knowledge about influencing factors can be used to improve patients' participation in clinical decision making, adherence to treatment and clinical outcomes.

Decision Support with the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate: A Multicenter Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy of the web based P3P (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate) decision aid vs usual care with regard to decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized (1:1), controlled, parallel group, nonblinded trial was performed in 4 regions of the United States. Eligible men had clinically localized prostate cancer and an upcoming consultation, and they spoke and read English or Spanish. Participants answered questionnaires to report decision making stage, personal characteristics, concerns and preferences plus baseline symptoms and decisional conflict. A randomization algorithm allocated participants to receive tailored education and communication coaching, generic teaching sheets and external websites plus a 1-page summary to clinicians (intervention) or the links plus materials provided in clinic (usual care). Conflict outcomes and the number of consultations were measured at 1 month. Univariate and multivariable models were used to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 392 men were randomized, including 198 to intervention and 194 to usual care, of whom 152 and 153, respectively, returned 1-month outcomes. The mean ± SD 1-month decisional conflict scale (score range 0 to 100) was 10.9 ± 16.7 for intervention and 9.9 ± 18.0 for usual care. The multivariable model revealed significantly reduced conflict in the intervention group (-5.00, 95% CI -9.40--0.59). Other predictors of conflict included income, marital or partner status, decision status, number of consultations, clinical site and D'Amico risk classification.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter trial the decision aid significantly reduced decisional conflict. Other variables impacted conflict and modified the effect of the decision aid, notably risk classification, consultations and resources. P3P is an effective adjunct for shared decision making in men with localized prostate cancer.

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.

Complete mitochondrial genome sequence and mutations of the prostate cancer model inbred Sprague-Dawley strain

In the present work we undertook the complete mitochondrial genome sequencing of a important prostate cancer model inbred Sprague-Dawley strain for the first time. The total length of the mitogenome was 16,308 bp. It harbored 13 protein-coding genes, two ribosomal RNA genes, 22 transfer RNA genes and one non-coding control region (D-loop region). The mutation events were also reported.