Phase I study of a decision aid for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

The impact of decision tools during oncological consultation with lung cancer patients: A systematic review within the I3LUNG project

INTRODUCTION

To date, lung cancer is one of the most lethal diagnoses worldwide. A variety of lung cancer treatments and modalities are available, which are generally presented during the patient and doctor consultation. The implementation of decision tools to facilitate patient's decision-making and the management of their healthcare process during medical consultation is fundamental. Studies have demonstrated that decision tools are helpful to promote health management and decision-making of lung cancer patients during consultations. The main aim of the present work within the I3LUNG project is to systematically review the implementation of decision tools to facilitate medical consultation about oncological treatments for lung cancer patients.

METHODS

In the present study, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. We used an electronic computer-based search involving three databases, as follows: Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included. They explicitly refer to decision tools in the oncological context, with lung cancer patients.

RESULTS

The discussion highlights the most encouraging results about the positive role of decision aids during medical consultations about oncological treatments, especially regarding anxiety, decision-making, and patient knowledge. However, no one main decision aid tool emerged as essential. Opting for a more recent timeframe to select eligible articles might shed light on the current array of decision aid tools available.

CONCLUSION

Future review efforts could utilize alternative search strategies to explore other lung cancer-specific outcomes during medical consultations for treatment decisions and the implementation of decision aid tools. Engaging with experts in the fields of oncology, patient decision-making, or health communication could provide valuable insights and recommendations for relevant literature or research directions that may not be readily accessible through traditional search methods. The development of guidelines for future research were provided with the aim to promote decision aids focused on patients' needs.

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.

Systematic review of shared decision-making interventions for people living with chronic respiratory diseases

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) supports patients to make informed and value-based decisions about their care. We are developing an intervention to enable healthcare professionals to support patients' pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) decision-making. To identify intervention components we needed to evaluate others carried out in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on patient decision-making (primary outcome) and downstream health-related outcomes (secondary outcome).

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review using the risk of bias (Cochrane ROB2, ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tools.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, PEDRO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, ISRCTN were search through to 11th April 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Trials evaluating SDM interventions in patients living with CRD using quantitative or mixed methods were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A narrative synthesis, with reference to The Making Informed Decisions Individually and Together (MIND-IT) model, was undertaken.

RESULTS

Eight studies (n=1596 (of 17 466 citations identified)) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Five studies included components targeting the patient, healthcare professionals and consultation process (demonstrating adherence to the MIND-IT model). All studies reported their interventions improved patient decision-making and health-related outcomes. No outcome was reported consistently across studies. Four studies had high risk of bias, three had low quality of evidence. Intervention fidelity was reported in two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest developing an SDM intervention including a patient decision aid, healthcare professional training, and a consultation prompt could support patient PR decisions, and health-related outcomes. Using a complex intervention development and evaluation research framework will likely lead to more robust research, and a greater understanding of service needs when integrating the intervention within practice.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020169897.

Evaluation of a National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines-Based Decision Support Tool in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The association of guideline-based decision support with the quality of care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of exposure to the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) guidelines with guideline-concordant care and patients' decisional conflict.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A nonrandomized clinical trial, conducted at a tertiary care academic institution, enrolled patients from February 23, 2015, to September 28, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from July 19, 2019, to April 22, 2020. A cohort of 76 patients with NSCLC seen at diagnosis or disease progression and a retrospective cohort of 157 patients treated before the trial were included. Adherence to 6 NCCN recommendations were evaluated: (1) smoking cessation counseling, (2) adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage IB to IIB NSCLC after surgery, (3) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before surgery, (4) pathologic mediastinal staging in patients with stage III NSCLC before nonsurgical treatment, (5) definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III NSCLC not having surgery, and (6) molecular testing for epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations for patients with stage IV NSCLC. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the rates of guideline concordance between the prospective and retrospective cohorts. Secondary end points included decisional conflict and satisfaction.

INTERVENTIONS

An online tool customizing the NCCN guidelines to patients' clinical and pathologic features was used during consultation, facilitated by a trained coordinator.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Concordance of practice with 6 NCCN treatment recommendations on NSCLC and patients' decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Of the 76 patients with NSCLC, 44 were men (57.9%), median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 41-87 years), and 59 patients (77.6%) had adenocarcinoma. In the retrospective cohort, 91 of 157 patients (58.0%) were men, median age at diagnosis was 66 years (IQR, 61-65 years), and 105 patients (66.9%) had adenocarcinoma. After the intervention, patients received more smoking cessation counseling (4 of 5 [80.0%] vs 1 of 24 [4.2%], P < .001) and less adjuvant chemotherapy (0 of 7 vs 7 of 11 [63.6%]; P = .012). There was no significant change in mutation testing of non-squamous cell stage IV disease (20 of 20 [100%] vs 48 of 57 [84.2%]; P = .10). There was no significant change in pathologic mediastinal staging or initial chemoradiotherapy for patients with stage III disease. After consultation with the tool, decisional conflict scores improved by a median of 20 points (IQR, 3-34; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that exposure to the NCCN guidelines is associated with increased guideline-concordant care for 2 of 6 preselected recommendations and improvement in decisional conflict.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982459.

The impact of decision aids in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the impact of patient decision aids (PDA) on patients facing treatment decisions for colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Sources included Embase, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from inception to June, 20, 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, mixed methods and case series in which a PDA for colorectal cancer treatment was used. Qualitative studies were excluded from our review.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following execution of the search strategy by a medical librarian, two blinded independent reviewers identified articles for inclusion. Two blinded reviewers were also responsible for data extraction, risk of bias and study quality assessments. Any conflict in article inclusion or extraction was resolved by discussion.

RESULTS

Out of 3773 articles identified, three met our inclusion criteria: one RCT, one before-and-after study and one mixed-method study. In these studies, the use of a PDA for colorectal cancer treatment was associated with increased patient knowledge, satisfaction and preparation for making a decision. On quality assessment, two of three studies were judged to be of low quality.

CONCLUSION

A paucity of evidence exists on the effect of PDA for colorectal cancer treatment with existing evidence being largely of low quality. Further investigation is required to determine the effect of decision aids for colorectal cancer treatment as well as reasons for the lack of PDA development and implementation in this area.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095153.

A stakeholder-driven approach to improve the informed consent process for palliative chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Patients often anticipate cure from palliative chemotherapy. Better resources are needed to convey its risks and benefits. We describe the stakeholder-driven development and acceptability testing of a prototype video and companion booklet supporting informed consent (IC) for a common palliative chemotherapy regimen.

METHODS

Our multidisciplinary team (researchers, advocates, clinicians) employed a multistep process of content development, production, critical evaluation, and iterative revisions. Patient/clinician stakeholders were engaged throughout using stakeholder advisory panels, featuring their voices within the intervention, conducting surveys and qualitative interviews. A national panel of 57 patient advocates, and 25 oncologists from nine US practices critiqued the intervention and rated its clarity, accuracy, balance, tone, and utility. Participants also reported satisfaction with existing chemotherapy IC materials.

RESULTS

Few oncologists (5/25, 20%) or advocates (10/22, 45%) were satisfied with existing IC materials. In contrast, most rated our intervention highly, with 89-96% agreeing it would be useful and promote informed decisions. Patient voices were considered a key strength. Every oncologist indicated they would use the intervention regularly.

CONCLUSION

Our intervention was acceptable to advocates and oncologists. A randomized trial is evaluating its impact on the chemotherapy IC process.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Stakeholder-driven methods can be valuable for developing patient educational interventions.

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.

Discursive Versus Information-Processing Perspectives on a Bioethical Problem

This article discusses an example of how the adoption of different theoretical views of the person can have practical implications for the field of bioethics. Patients who agree to receive new medical treatments with little chance of benefit routinely report strong confidence that they will experience benefit. These ‘unrealistic’ expectations are interpreted as false beliefs about treatment, and thus as evidence that the informed consent process has failed. This interpretation of patient reports is consistent with an information-processing framework in which the patient is viewed as transmitting information that enjoys an independent existence in the mental machinery of the person. The perspective of discursive psychology, on the other hand, views the patients’ reports as activities undertaken to achieve specific aims within particular discursive contexts. It is argued that if bioethicists adopt the discursive perspective, some cases of ‘false belief’ might not pose a bioethical problem.

Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods

Background. Values clarification is a recommended element of patient decision aids. Many different values clarification methods exist, but there is little evidence synthesis available to guide design decisions. Purpose. To describe practices in the field of explicit values clarification methods according to a taxonomy of design features. Data Sources. MEDLINE, all EBM Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Google Scholar, manual search of reference lists, and expert contacts. Study Selection. Articles were included if they described 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. Data Extraction. We extracted data about decisions addressed; use of theories, frameworks, and guidelines; and 12 design features. Data Synthesis. We identified 110 articles describing 98 explicit values clarification methods. Most of these addressed decisions in cancer or reproductive health, and half addressed a decision between just 2 options. Most used neither theory nor guidelines to structure their design. “Pros and cons” was the most common type of values clarification method. Most methods did not allow users to add their own concerns. Few methods explicitly presented tradeoffs inherent in the decision, supported an iterative process of values exploration, or showed how different options aligned with users’ values. Limitations. Study selection criteria and choice of elements for the taxonomy may have excluded values clarification methods or design features. Conclusions. Explicit values clarification methods have diverse designs but can be systematically cataloged within the structure of a taxonomy. Developers of values clarification methods should carefully consider each of the design features in this taxonomy and publish adequate descriptions of their designs. More research is needed to study the effects of different design features.

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.

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.

Supporting Treatment Decision Making in Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Trial of a Decision Aid for Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Considering Chemotherapy

Purpose

Decision making in advanced cancer is increasingly complex. We developed a decision aid (DA) for patients with advanced colorectal cancer who are considering first-line chemotherapy and reviewing treatment options, prognostic information, and toxicities. We examined its impact on patient understanding, treatment decisions, decisional conflict, decision making, consultation satisfaction, anxiety, and quality of life by using a randomized trial design.

Patients and Methods

In all, 207 patients with colorectal cancer who were considering first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive a standard medical oncology consultation or a consultation in which the DA (take-home booklet with audio recording, reviewed by an oncologist) was used. Participants completed questionnaires postconsultation, postdecision, and 1 month later.

Results

In this study, 100 patients were randomly assigned to the control arm, and 107 received the DA. Median age of the sample was 62 years, 58% were male, 89% had a performance status of 0 or 1, and 36% had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients receiving the DA demonstrated a greater increase in understanding of prognosis, options, and benefits, with higher overall understanding (P < .001). Decisional conflict, treatment decisions, and achievement of involvement preferences were similar between the groups. Anxiety was similar across groups and decreased over time. Most patients were confident in a decision during the first consultation; 74% chose chemotherapy, 7% supportive care alone, and 10% observation.

Conclusion

This randomized trial of a decision aid in advanced cancer showed that its use in advanced colorectal cancer improved patient understanding of prognosis, treatment options, risks, and benefits without increasing anxiety. DAs can improve informed consent and can be tested through randomized trials even in the advanced cancer setting.

A pilot trial of decision aids to give truthful prognostic and treatment information to chemotherapy patients with advanced cancer

Most cancer patients do not have an explicit discussion about prognosis and treatment despite documented adverse outcomes. Few decision aids have been developed to assist the difficult discussions of palliative management. We developed decision aids for people with advanced in curable breast, colorectal, lung, and hormone-refractory prostate cancers facing first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line chemotherapy. We recruited patients from our urban oncology clinic after gaining the permission of their treating oncologist. We measured knowledge of curability and treatment benefit before and after the intervention. Twenty-six of 27 (96%) patients completed the aids, with ameanage of 63, 56% female, 56% married, 56% African American, and 67% with a high school education or more. Most patients (14/27, 52%) thought a person with their advanced cancer could be cured, which was reduced (to 8/26, 31%, P = 0.15) after the decision aid. Nearly all overestimated the effect of palliative chemotherapy. No distress was noted, and hope did not change. The majority (20/27, 74%) found the information helpful to them, and almost all (25/27, 93%) wanted to share the information with their family and physicians. It is possible to give incurable patients their prognosis, treatment options, and options for improving end-of-life care without causing distress or lack of hope. Almost all find the information helpful and want to share it with doctors and family. Research is needed to test the findings in a larger sample and measure the outcomes of truthful information on quality of life, quality of care, and costs.

Clinical prognostic factors in patients with locally advanced (stage III) nonsmall cell lung cancer treated with hyperfractionated radiation therapy with and without concurrent chemotherapy: single-Institution Experience in 600 Patients

BACKGROUND

Influence of potential clinical prognostic factors on overall survival (OS), local progression-free survival (PFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (MFS) in patients with locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer treated with hyperfractionated radiation therapy (HFX RT) with or without concurrent chemotherapy was investigated.

METHODS

Three phase 3 and 2 phase 2 studies have been designed and executed with a total of 600 patients. HFX RT alone was given in 127 and HFX RT-chemotherapy was given in 473 patients. HFX RT doses were either 64.8 grays (Gy) or 69.6 Gy using 1.2 Gy twice daily, or 67.6 Gy using 1.3 Gy twice daily. Chemotherapy consisted of concurrent carboplatin and etoposide in 409 patients and concurrent carboplatin and paclitaxel in 64 patients. Sex, age, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), weight loss (>5%), stage, histology, interfraction interval, and treatment (the addition of concurrent chemotherapy) were investigated as potential prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The median OS, median local PFS, and median distant MFS times were 19, 21, and 23 months, respectively. Five-year OS, local PFS, and distant MFS rates were 19%, 29%, and 35%, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that only age did not influence OS and local PFS, whereas female sex, lower KPS, less pronounced weight loss, lower stage, squamous histology, shorter interfraction interval, and treatment independently predicted better OS and local PFS. Only age and treatment did not influence distant MFS, whereas histology was of borderline significance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified independent prognosticators of treatment outcome. These results may have implications for future studies in this disease.

Perceptions of medication safety among patients with inflammatory bowel disease

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess attitudes towards and knowledge of medication safety in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD patients frequently require long-term treatment with potentially toxic medications. Techniques are employed to improve patient awareness of medication safety, but there are sparse data on their effectiveness.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Questionnaires relating to the safety and efficacy of commonly used IBD treatments (aminosalicylates, corticosteroids, immunomodulators, biologics) were completed by IBD patients attending the gastroenterology clinics at a teaching hospital.

RESULTS

One hundred patients (51 male) with a median (interquartile range) age of 37 (29-49) years were included: 56 Crohn's disease, 44 ulcerative colitis. Aminosalicylates (median 0.8 (IQR 0.1-1.9)) were ranked as the safest medication; corticosteroids (4.6 (1.1-8.2)), immunomodulators (4.2 (1.1-8.4) and biologics (4.4 (1.1-6.8)) were ranked equally. 36%, 53% and 79% reported no knowledge regarding safety of corticosteroids, immunomodulators and biologics, respectively. Most patients wish to be informed of all medication side-effects, no matter how rare, and ranked their gastroenterologist as their primary information source.

CONCLUSIONS

IBD patients want to be informed of all potential adverse events and identify their gastroenterologist as their principal information source. The majority have no knowledge regarding or underestimate the toxicity of common IBD medications. This places a responsibility on gastroenterologists to manage and meet patients' expectations in the area of medication safety.

How to define and measure concordance between patients' preferences and medical treatments: A systematic review of approaches and recommendations for standardization

OBJECTIVE

The purpose is to systematically review the methods used to calculate the association between patients' preferences and treatment choices and to present a set of recommendations for definition and measurement of this concept.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 1967 to 2007 identified articles that reported a relationship between patients' preferences and their treatment choices. Potential citations were identified from electronic databases, the Cochrane Collaborative review, and identified experts. Relevant articles were abstracted by two reviewers independently using standard forms.

RESULTS

The search identified 3114 unique citations, the full text of 180 articles was examined, and 49 articles were included. These 49 studies used a variety of definitions of preferences and choices, and calculated concordance in different ways. Half of the studies tied their method to a theoretical framework. There were problems with many of the studies that limit the ability to generalize or make comparisons across studies.

CONCLUSION

There is no consistent method for defining or calculating the match between patients' preferences and treatment choices. There is a need for more clarity in the definition and reporting of this type of concordance in measures of decision quality.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The match between an informed patient's preferences and treatment choices is a key component of patient-centered care. Valid and reliable measures of the level of concordance are needed.

Preferences of advanced lung cancer patients for patient-centred information and decision-making: a prospective multicentre study in 13 hospitals in Belgium

OBJECTIVE

To identify preferences of advanced lung cancer patients for receiving information and participating in decision-making concerning treatment options, health-care-setting transfers and end-of-life decision-making.

METHODS

Over the course of 1 year, pulmonologists and oncologists in 13 hospitals in Flanders, Belgium, invited patients with an initial diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer IIIb/IV to participate in the study. Shortly after inclusion, the patients were interviewed with a structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

One-hundred and twenty-eight patients with a median estimated survival time of 10 months participated. Almost all wanted information on diagnosis, treatment and cure rate and slightly fewer on life expectancy (88.2%). Information about palliative care was desired by 63.5% of patients and information about end-of-life decisions by 56.8%. The percentage of patients who preferred personal control over medical decision-making increased to 14.8% for treatment, 25.0% for transfer and 49.2% for end-of-life decisions, all of which were higher than for medical decisions in general (9.3%).

CONCLUSION

Information and participation preferences of advanced lung cancer patients differ depending on the type of information or decision.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

As part of a patient-centred approach, physicians should not only check the general but also the specific information and participation preferences of their patients.

Patient willingness to undergo chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine how Japanese patients with lung cancer weigh the chance of cure and potential survival against the potential toxicity of different treatment strategies for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We used a questionnaire describing a hypothetical situation involving locally advanced NSCLC. Seventy-three patients with lung cancer who had received chemotherapy and a control group of 120 patients without cancer were asked to state the minimal benefit that would make two hypothetical treatments acceptable.

RESULTS

Patients with lung cancer were significantly more likely than were patients without cancer to accept either intensive or less-intensive chemoradiotherapy for a potentially small benefit for 'chance of cure' and 'response but not cure'. The percentages of patients who would accept intensive or less-intensive chemoradiotherapy to prolong survival did not differ significantly between the two groups. When the chance of cure was 20%, 56 and 64% of patients with lung cancer were willing to receive intensive and less-intensive chemoradiotherapy, respectively. If their lives were prolonged by 6 months, 20 and 30% of patients with lung cancer would choose to receive intensive and less-intensive chemoradiotherapy, respectively. The chance of cure and the survival advantage that patients require for accepting chemoradiotherapy varied widely. No factors were associated with the choice of chemoradiotherapy in patients with lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians must consider the substantial range of attitudes to chemoradiotherapy among patients when selecting treatment and give patients opportunities to be included in the treatment-selection process.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of decision aids for people facing difficult treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to July 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library; 2006, Issue 2); CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to July 2006); EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to July 2006); and PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to July 2006). We contacted researchers active in the field up to December 2006. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published RCTs of interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to no intervention, usual care, and alternate interventions. We excluded studies in which participants were not making an active treatment or screening decision, or if the study's intervention was not available to determine that it met the minimum criteria to qualify as a patient decision aid.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened abstracts for inclusion, and extracted data from included studies using standardized forms. The primary outcomes focused on the effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: attributes of the decision and attributes of the decision process. We considered other behavioural, health, and health system effects as secondary outcomes. We pooled results of RCTs using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 25 new RCTs, bringing the total to 55. Thirty-eight (69%) used at least one measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion: decision attributes: knowledge scores (27 trials); accurate risk perceptions (11 trials); and value congruence with chosen option (4 trials); and decision process attributes: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials).This review confirmed the following findings from the previous (2003) review. Decision aids performed better than usual care interventions in terms of: a) greater knowledge (MD 15.2 out of 100; 95% CI 11.7 to 18.7); b) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -8.3 of 100; 95% CI -11.9 to -4.8); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.4; 95% CI -10.0 to -2.7); d) reduced the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8). When simpler decision aids were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in knowledge (MD 4.6 out of 100; 95% CI 3.0 to 6.2) and there was some evidence of greater agreement between values and choice.In this review, we were able to explore the use of probabilities in decision aids. Exposure to a decision aid with probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.9). The effect was stronger when probabilities were measured quantitatively (RR 1.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3) versus qualitatively (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.5).As in the previous review, exposure to decision aids continued to demonstrate reduced rates of: elective invasive surgery in favour of conservative options, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9); and use of menopausal hormones, detailed versus simple aid (RR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0). There is now evidence that exposure to decision aids results in reduced PSA screening, decision aid versus usual care (RR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.0) . For other decisions, the effect on decisions remains variable.As in the previous review, decision aids are no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, continuance, resource use) were inconclusive.There were no trials evaluating the IPDAS decision process criteria relating to helping patients to recognize a decision needs to be made, understand that values affect the decision, or discuss values with the practitioner.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patient decision aids increase people's involvement and are more likely to lead to informed values-based decisions; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Decision aids have a variable effect on decisions. They reduce the use of discretionary surgery without apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The degree of detail patient decision aids require for positive effects on decision quality should be explored. The effects on continuance with chosen option, patient-practitioner communication, consultation length, and cost-effectiveness need further evaluation.

Making therapeutic decisions in inflammatory bowel disease: the role of patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is becoming more complex due to the introduction of new medications and evolving treatment algorithms. Data suggest that more aggressive treatment will yield improved clinical results. Although promising, it is not clear if patients will agree to this new approach. This review aims to describe what we know about patients' perceptions of risks and benefits of treatment, how much risk IBD patients are willing to accept, and to introduce ideas to facilitate better patient communication.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients and parents of children with IBD appear to be willing to accept the known risks associated with IBD therapies, but demand substantial treatment benefit to make this tradeoff. As patients with IBD have misperceptions about the risks and benefits of treatment, it is important to develop better methods of communicating medical information.

SUMMARY

There are now more treatment options for patients with IBD. To increase patients' participation in medical decisions, it is critical to fairly present the tradeoffs of risks versus benefits of treatment. Tools are being developed to more clearly present clinical trial data, risks of medication side effects and for calculating individualized risks of disease complications and response to therapy.

Is There a Role for Decision Aids in Advanced Breast Cancer?

Background . A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer (BC) forces patients and providers to make difficult treatment decisions. Objective . To pilot test a decision aid (DA) for advanced BC. Design . Pretest, posttest study. Setting . Two academic cancer centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Patients . Fifty patients diagnosed with advanced BC. Intervention . A patient DA that consisted of a 30-minute DVD and booklet. Measurements . Patients were surveyed at baseline, after the intervention, and at 3 months. Measures included use and acceptability of DA, distress, treatment goals, and preference for and actual participation in decisions. Physicians were surveyed at baseline and 3 months. Measures included treatment goals, assessment of patients' experience with treatments, and patients' preference for and actual participation in decisions. Results . Thirty-two patients (64%) enrolled and completed the baseline survey, 30 completed the postvideo survey, and 25 completed the 3-month survey. The DA was acceptable and did not increase distress. The majority desired to share decision making with their doctor. Only 38% achieved their desired level of participation. At baseline, agreement between patients and providers on the main goal of treatment (lengthen life v. relieve symptoms) was 50% (κ = —0.045, P = 0.71), and at 3 months it was 74% (κ = 0.125, P = 0.48). Conclusions . It is feasible to perform a clinical trial of a DA with advanced BC patients. Most participants wanted to participate in decisions about their care and found the DA acceptable. This study highlights several issues in developing and implementing DAs in this vulnerable population facing complex decisions.

Enhancing treatment decision-making: pilot study of a treatment decision aid in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer

We developed a decision aid (DA) for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to better inform patients of their prognosis and treatment options, and facilitate involvement in decision-making. In a pilot study, 20 patients with metastatic NSCLC attending outpatient clinics at a major cancer centre, who had already made a treatment decision, reviewed acceptability of the DA. The median age of the patients was 61 years (range 37-77 years), 35% were male, 20% had a university education, and most (75%) had English as a first language. Most had received chemotherapy, with 65% currently on treatment. Patients were not anxious at baseline and had clear understanding of the goals and toxicity of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. After reviewing the DA, patients' anxiety decreased slightly (P=0.04) and knowledge scores improved by 25% (P<0.001). Most improvements in understanding were of prognosis with and without chemotherapy, although patients still believed advanced NSCLC to be curable. Patients rated the DA highly with respect to information clarity, usefulness and were positive about its use in practice, although 40% found the prognostic information slightly upsetting. The DA for advanced NSCLC is feasible, acceptable to patients and improves understanding of advanced NSCLC without increasing patient anxiety.

Evaluation of the treatment tradeoff method in rectal cancer patients: is surgery preference related to outcome utilities?

BACKGROUND

The treatment tradeoff method (TTM) has been developed specifically for decision making at the level of the individual patient. The task is tailored to the clinical decision problem at hand and may therefore be more relevant to patients than methods of outcome valuation. Despite its wide use in oncology research, few methodological studies regarding validity have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

The present study evaluates the validity of the TTM in rectal cancer patients who had undergone either 1 of 2 surgery types: 1 requiring a permanent stoma (stoma group) and 1 involving a postoperative risk of fecal incontinence (no-stoma group). The authors relate the surgery preference scores to the utilities of the 2 main surgery outcome states as well as to their utility difference.

RESULTS

Surgery preference was more strongly associated with the utility difference (r > 0.54 in the total patient group) than with the utilities of the surgery outcome states per se (r < 0.44 in the total patient group). In the stoma group, surgery preference was especially related to the utility of incontinence and in the no-stoma group especially to the utility of a permanent stoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients indeed use their valuations of treatment outcomes states, especially those they are less familiar with, in determining their preference for one treatment over another. In clinical practice, the TTM may be used to obtain an indication of the treatment preference of an individual patient and may also be helpful to detect patients' motives to choose one treatment over another.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for patients considering first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

Treatment decisions in advanced breast cancer are complex, with enhanced quality of life and survival among important treatment goals. Patients with metastatic breast cancer face the decision of whether or not to have chemotherapy, and many wish to be involved in this decision. We report the development and evaluation of a decision aid (DA) designed to assist patients facing this treatment decision.

DESIGN AND SAMPLE

Women with metastatic breast cancer (n = 17)and medical oncologists in Australia and Canada (n = 7) were invited to evaluate the DA.

INTERVENTION

A DA was developed for patients with hormone resistant metastatic breast cancer considering chemotherapy. The DA presented options of supportive care, with or without chemotherapy. Potential benefits and side effects of different chemotherapy regimens, and evidence-based prognostic estimates were described,and a values clarification exercise included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient questionnaires evaluating information and decision involvement preferences, attitudes toward the DA and oncologist feedback regarding attitudes toward the DA.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients participated; fifteen desired as much information about their illness as possible; sixteen wished to be actively involved in the decision-making process. The majority rated the DA as highly acceptable, clear and informative, and would recommend it to others facing this treatment decision.

CONCLUSION

This is the first DA for patients with advanced metastatic breast cancer considering chemotherapy. A randomized trial is underway to evaluate its role in clinical decision-making.

Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, stage IV: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition)

BACKGROUND

Stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a treatable but incurable disease.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed to identify pertinent peer-reviewed articles that addressed the questions posed for this section. The writing committee developed and graded recommendations, which were subsequently approved by the American College of Chest Physicians.

RESULTS

Platinum-based doublets remain the standard of care in patients with good performance status (PS); there is no evidence that the addition of a third cytotoxic agent improves survival. Likewise, with only one exception, the addition of a new targeted or biological agent to platinum-based doublets does not improve survival. The one exception is the addition of bevacizumab, an antiangiogenic agent, to carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with stage IV disease and good PS. Patients for whom bevacizumab is recommended must also be selected on the basis of histology (nonsquamous), absence of brain metastases and hemoptysis, and no indication for therapeutic anticoagulation. In patients with stage IV NSCLC and PS of 2, chemotherapy is recommended, but the optimal approach has not been defined. Elderly patients, defined as >/= 70 years old, also derive benefit from chemotherapy. Most elderly patients should receive single-agent chemotherapy, but elderly patients with good PS and without significant comorbidities seem to derive a similar benefit from platinum-based doublets compared with their younger counterparts without a prohibitive difference in treatment toxicities. Because stage IV NSCLC is incurable, quality-of-life issues are important, and tools exist to monitor a patient's quality of life during therapy. Last, patients need to be informed of the implication of the diagnosis of stage IV NSCLC and be educated about treatment options that are available to them.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances have been made in stage IV NSCLC, and the appropriate use of chemotherapy continues to evolve on the basis of well-designed clinical trials that address critical issues in this population.

A decision aid for COPD patients considering inhaled steroid therapy: development and before and after pilot testing

BACKGROUND

Decision aids (DA) are tools designed to help patients make specific and deliberative choices among disease management options. DAs can improve the quality of decision-making and reduce decisional conflict. An area not covered by a DA is the decision of a patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to use inhaled steroids which requires balancing the benefits and downsides of therapy.

METHODS

We developed a DA for COPD patients considering inhaled steroid therapy using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the best available evidence for using inhaled steroid in COPD and the expected utility model. The development process involved patients, pulmonologists, DA developers and decision making experts. We pilot tested the DA with 8 COPD patients who completed an evaluation questionnaire, a knowledge scale, and a validated decisional conflict scale.

RESULTS

The DA is a computer-based interactive tool incorporating four different decision making models. In the first part, the DA provides information about COPD as a disease, the different treatment options, and the benefits and downsides of using inhaled steroids. In the second part, it coaches the patient in the decision making process through clarifying values and preferences. Patients evaluated 10 out of 13 items of the DA positively and showed significant improvement on both the knowledge scale (p = 0.008) and the decisional conflict scale (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

We have developed a computer-based interactive DA for COPD patients considering inhaled steroids serving as a model for other DAs in COPD, in particular related to inhaled therapies. Future research should assess the DA effectiveness.

A systematic review of information in decision aids

OBJECTIVE

We completed a systematic review of information reported as included in decision aids (DAs) for adult patients, to determine if it is complete, balanced and accurate.

SEARCH STRATEGY

DAs were identified using the Cochrane Database of DAs and searches of four electronic databases using the terms: 'decision aid'; shared decision making' and 'patients'; 'multimedia or leaflets or pamphlets or videos and patients and decision making'. Additionally, publications reporting DA development and actual DAs that were reported as publicly available on the Internet were consulted. Publications were included up to May 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted on the following variables: external groups consulted in development of the DA, type of study used, categories of information, inclusion of probabilities, use of citation lists and inclusion of patient experiences.

MAIN RESULTS

68 treatment DAs and 30 screening DAs were identified. 17% of treatment DAs and 47% of screening DAs did not report any external consultation and, of those that did, DA producers tended to rely more heavily on medical experts than on patients' guidance. Content evaluations showed that (i) treatment DAs frequently omit describing the procedure(s) involved in treatment options and (ii) screening DAs frequently focus on false positives but not false negatives. About 1/2 treatment DAs reported probabilities with a greater emphasis on potential benefits than harms. Similarly, screening DAs were more likely to provide false-positive than false-negative rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The review led us to be concerned about completeness, balance and accuracy of information included in DAs.

Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions

PURPOSE

To compare relative accuracy and relative response times (RTs) as well as impact of foreground and background colors in a treatment decision context of judging larger/smaller when the following elements are added to the graphics studied previously: 1) a number (the displayed percentage), 2) a referent scale, and 3) a number and a referent scale.

METHOD

An experiment compared pie charts, vertical bars, horizontal bars, digits, systematic ovals, and random ovals. On each trial, participants saw 2 percentages (in 1 format) and were asked to choose the larger chance of survival or the smaller chance of side effects. Outcomes were errors and RT. Formats were either black and white or blue and yellow; background color was either white or blue. Participants were 216 volunteers from the community older than 50 years.

RESULTS

Formats with a number produced the same relative errors and relative RT as the formats with a number and scale. Formats with only a scale, however, shifted relative performance: Errors increased with more difficult formats (pie charts and random ovals by 3%-4% v. approximately 1% with other formats), but RT decreased with easier formats (vertical bars, horizontal bars, and systematic ovals decreased 100-200 ms v. an increase of 0-300 ms with other formats). Vertical bars with scales were the fastest and most accurately processed. Neither foreground nor background color had any impact on either outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

For supporting older people's judgments of relative extent, risk information is best presented using vertical bars with a scale; the format systematic ovals with a scale are among the next most easily processed.

Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review

Patients with advanced, non-curable cancer face difficult decisions on further treatment, where a small increase in survival time must be balanced against the toxicity of the treatment. If patients want to be involved in these decisions, in keeping with current notions of autonomy and empowerment, they also require to be adequately informed both on the treatments proposed and on their own disease status and prognosis. A systematic review was performed on decision-making and information provision in patients with advanced cancer. Studies of interventions to improve information giving and encourage participation in decision-making were reviewed, including both randomised controlled trials and uncontrolled studies. Almost all patients expressed a desire for full information, but only about two-thirds wished to participate actively in decision-making. Higher educational level, younger age and female sex were predictive of a desire to participate in decision-making. Active decision-making was more common in patients with certain cancers (e.g. breast) than others (e.g. prostate). A number of simple interventions including question prompt sheets, audio-taping of consultations and patient decision aids have been shown to facilitate such involvement.

Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids

Decision aids are tools intended to help patients with decisions about their health-care. We have developed three decision aids to help patients with treatment decisions for: locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), advanced non-small cell lung cancer (A-NSCLC), and early-stage prostate cancer (ES-PC). In developing the aids, we carried out studies to provide them with an empirical basis, and to evaluate their potential for impact. In this paper we report results that challenge common assumptions and typical practice that currently occurs in the development of decision aids. The challenges relate to: how the content of the aid is defined, how the information is presented, how to incorporate decision aids into the dynamic, complex process of making such decisions, and how to evaluate the aids. We conclude that critical appraisal of issues related to the design and implementation of decision aids is required.

Outcomes research related to patient decision making in oncology

For outcomes research, what are the implications of seeing the patient as a decision maker? In the current medical environment, greater emphasis is placed on the role played by the patient in clinical decision making. In the past 2 decades, considerable work has been done to identify and measure decision-related outcomes, including knowledge about the treatment options (risks and benefits), satisfaction, anxiety, decisional conflict, and involvement in the decision process. Attempts to improve these decision-related outcomes involve patient decision aids, which convey patient-specific information and sometimes help patients proceed through an explicit decision-making process. These interventions have produced positive results, especially with respect to improving patient knowledge. Future research is needed to understand which aspects of the interventions work and for what types of patients. Research is also needed to better understand the decision making process of patients who do not use decision aids.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids prepare people to participate in preference-sensitive decisions.

OBJECTIVES

1. Create a comprehensive inventory of patient decision aids focused on healthcare options. 2. Review randomized controlled trials (RCT) of decision aids, for people facing healthcare decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were identified through databases and contact with researchers active in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two independent reviewers screened abstracts for interventions designed to aid patients' decision making by providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes. Information about the decision aids was compiled in an inventory; those that had been evaluated in a RCT were reviewed in detail.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data using standardized forms. Results of RCTs were pooled using weighted mean differences (WMD) and relative risks (RR) using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Over 200 decision aids were identified. Of the 131 available decision aids, most are intended for use before counselling. Using the CREDIBLE criteria to evaluate the quality of the decision aids: a) most included potential harms and benefits, credentials of the developers, description of their development process, update policy, and were free of perceived conflict of interest; b) many included reference to relevant literature; c) few included a description of the level of uncertainty regarding the evidence; and d) few were evaluated. Thirty of these decision aids were evaluated in 34 RCTs and another trial evaluated a suite of eight decision aids. An additional 30 trials are yet to be published. Among the trials comparing decision aids to usual care, decision aids performed better in terms of: a) greater knowledge (WMD 19 out of 100, 95% CI: 13 to 24; b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1 to 1.9); c) lower decisional conflict related to feeling informed (WMD -9.1 of 100, 95%CI: -12 to -6); d) increased proportion of people active in decision making (RR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.3); and e) reduced proportion of people who remained undecided post intervention (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.3 to 0.7). When simpler were compared to more detailed decision aids, the relative improvement was significant in: a) knowledge (WMD 4 out of 100, 95% CI: 3 to 6); b) more realistic expectations (RR 1.5, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.7); and c) greater agreement between values and choice. Decision aids appeared to do no better than comparisons in affecting satisfaction with decision making, anxiety, and health outcomes. Decision aids had a variable effect on which healthcare options were selected.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The availability of decision aids is expanding with many on the Internet; however few have been evaluated. Trials indicate that decision aids improve knowledge and realistic expectations; enhance active participation in decision making; lower decisional conflict; decrease the proportion of people remaining undecided, and improve agreement between values and choice. The effects on persistence with chosen therapies and cost-effectiveness require further evaluation. Finally, optimal strategies for dissemination need to be explored.

Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer: a decade of progress

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To provide a systematic overview of the literature investigating patient and tumor factors that are predictive of survival for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to analyze patterns in the design of these studies in order to highlight problematic aspects of their design and to advocate for appropriate directions of future studies.

DESIGN

A systematic search of the MEDLINE database and a synthesis of the identified literature.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The database search (January 1990 to July 2001) was carried out combining the MeSH terms prognosis and carcinoma, nonsmall cell lung. Eight hundred eighty-seven articles met the search criteria. These studies identified 169 prognostic factors relating either to the tumor or the host. One hundred seventy-six studies reported multivariate analyses. Concerning 153 studies reporting a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in patients with early-stage NSCLC, the median number of patients enrolled per study was 120 (range, 31 to 1,281 patients). The median number of factors reported to be significant in univariate analyses was 4 (range, 2 to 14 factors). The median number of factors reported to be significant in multivariate analyses per study was 2 (range, 0 to 6 factors). The median number of studies examining each prognostic factor was 1 (range, 1 to 105 studies). Only 6% of studies addressed clinical outcomes other than patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

While the breadth of prognostic factors studied in the literature is extensive, the scope of factors evaluated in individual studies is inappropriately narrow. Individual studies are typically statistically underpowered and are remarkably heterogeneous with regard to their conclusions. Larger studies with clinically relevant modeling are required to address the usefulness of newly available prognostic factors in defining the management of patients with NSCLC.

Cancer patients' attitudes toward treatment options for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: implications for patient education and decision support

The purpose of this study was to determine how people weigh both median survival time and 1-year survival probability when considering a choice between palliative Cisplatin-based chemotherapy with best supportive care (C+BSC) versus best supportive care alone (BSC) as treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Sixty people, previously treated for cancer, were interviewed as surrogate patients making a treatment decision. The interview included a structured description of the treatment options, and trade-off exercises used to clarify the participants' attitudes pertaining to the survival probabilities associated with each treatment.Participants' attitudes ranged from choosing the more toxic treatment if it offered no survival advantage to declining C+BSC no matter how large its advantage. Fifty-seven percent of participants would choose chemotherapy if the 1-year survival were 10% higher with C+BSC than with BSC alone. For 44 participants (76%), both their median survival and 1-year survival thresholds for accepting C+BSC were consistent, and for two (3%), neither threshold was consistent with their stated treatment preference. For the remaining 12 (21%), one threshold was discordant, but in all cases, this threshold was less relevant to his/her decision. Participants' thresholds could not be predicted reliably on the basis of patient age, sex, education, preferred role in treatment decision making, or previous treatment with chemotherapy. All but one participant recommended the interview as a decision-support strategy for actual patients. The findings suggest that patients with advanced NSCLC should be offered more than one treatment option, and that a systematic process for educating patients and for eliciting their preferences is desirable. The process described herein has potential for use in this clinical setting.