How do patients between the age of 65 and 75 use a web-based decision aid for treatment choice in localized prostate cancer?

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessie Schrijvers ◽  
Joke Vanderhaegen ◽  
Hendrik Van Poppel ◽  
Karin Haustermans ◽  
Chantal Van Audenhove
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Valgerdur Kristin Eiriksdottir ◽  
Thordis Jonsdottir ◽  
Heiddis B. Valdimarsdottir ◽  
Kathryn L. Taylor ◽  
Marc D. Schwartz ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 109 (7) ◽  
pp. 1006-1012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim Chamie ◽  
Lorna Kwan ◽  
Sarah E. Connor ◽  
Mary Zavala ◽  
Jessica Labo ◽  
...  

Cancer ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (23) ◽  
pp. 5391-5399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire F. Snyder ◽  
Kevin D. Frick ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
Robert J. Herbert ◽  
Bridget A. Neville ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6578-6578
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Katz ◽  
Ying Cao ◽  
Xinglei Shen ◽  
Deborah Usinger ◽  
Sarah Walden ◽  
...  

6578 Background: Men with localized prostate cancer must select from multiple treatment options, without one clear best choice. Consequently, personal factors, such as knowing other prostate cancer patients who have undergone treatment, may influence patient decision-making. However, associations between knowledge about others’ experiences and treatment decision-making among localized prostate cancer patients has not been well characterized. We used data from a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer patients to examine whether patient-reported knowledge of others’ experiences is associated with treatment choice. Methods: The North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS) is a population-based cohort of localized prostate cancer patients enrolled from 2011-2013 throughout the state of North Carolina in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. All patients were enrolled prior to treatment and followed prospectively. Patient decision-making factors including knowledge of others’ experiences with prostate cancer treatment options were collected through patient report. Patient treatment choice was determined through medical record abstraction and cancer registry data. Results: Among 1,202 patients, 17% reported knowing someone who pursued active surveillance (AS) while 28%, 46%, and 59% reported knowing someone who received brachytherapy, external beam radiation (EBRT), or radical prostatectomy (RP), respectively; 26% underwent AS, 9% brachytherapy, 21% EBRT, and 39% RP as their initial treatment. In unadjusted analyses, patients with knowledge of others’ experiences with brachytherapy, EBRT or RP had more than twice the odds of receiving that treatment compared to patients who did not. Knowledge of others’ experience with AS was not associated with choice to undergo AS. Multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, risk group, and patient-reported goals of care showed knowledge of others’ experiences with brachytherapy (OR 4.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76 to 7.68), EBRT (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.34), or RP (OR 4.02, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.70) was significantly associated with odds of receiving that treatment. The odds of receiving a particular treatment option were further increased among patients who reported knowing someone who had a “good” experience with the treatment in question. Conclusions: This is the first population-based study to directly demonstrate the impact of a patient’s knowledge of others’ experiences on treatment choice in prostate cancer. These data provide a new consideration to clinicians in their counseling of patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, and also impacts research into the informed decision-making process for this disease.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 964-973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravishankar Jayadevappa ◽  
Sumedha Chhatre ◽  
Joseph J. Gallo ◽  
Marsha Wittink ◽  
Knashawn H. Morales ◽  
...  

PURPOSE To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories. RESULTS Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups ( P < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; P < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months ( P < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group ( P < .001). CONCLUSION Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. E10-E21
Author(s):  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Rodney H. Breau ◽  
Nicole Baba ◽  
Terry Blackmore ◽  
...  

Medical Care ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 401-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Miller ◽  
Benjamin A. Spencer ◽  
Jamie Ritchey ◽  
Andrew K. Stewart ◽  
Rodney L. Dunn ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1013-1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig A Block ◽  
Brad Erickson ◽  
Caroline Carney-Doebbling ◽  
Susanna Gordon ◽  
Bernard Fallon ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document