scholarly journals Feasibility and Efficacy of Decision Aids to Improve Decision Making for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas L. Berlin ◽  
Vickram J. Tandon ◽  
Sarah T. Hawley ◽  
Jennifer B. Hamill ◽  
Mark P. MacEachern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement ◽  
The Impact

Background. The decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction following mastectomy is complex. Research suggests that fewer than half of women undergoing mastectomy have adequate knowledge and make treatment decisions that are concordant with their underlying values. This systematic review assesses the feasibility and efficacy of preoperative decision aids (DAs) to improve the patient decision-making process for breast reconstruction. Methods. A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Databases published prior to January 4, 2018. Studies that assessed the impact of a DA on patient decision making for breast reconstruction were identified. The effect of preoperative DAs on decisional conflict in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was measured with inverse variance-weighted mean differences (mean difference [MD] ± 95% confidence interval [CI]). Results. Among 1299 unique articles identified, 1197 were excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts against selection criteria. Among the 17 studies included in this review, 11 assessed the efficacy of DAs for breast reconstruction and 6 additional studies described the development and usability of these DAs. Studies suggest that DAs reduce patient-reported decisional conflict (MD, –4.55 [95% CI, –8.65 to –0.45], P = 0.03 in the fixed-effects model and MD, –4.70 [95% CI, –10.75 to 1.34], P = 0.13 in the random-effects model). Preoperative DAs also improved patient satisfaction with information and perceived involvement in the decision-making process. Conclusions. The existing literature suggests that DAs reduce decisional conflict, improve self-reported satisfaction with information, and improve perceived involvement in the decision-making process for women considering breast reconstruction.

scholarly journals Protocol for systematic review: patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissa Pacheco-Brousseau ◽  
Marylène Charette ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Stéphane Poitras
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Hip And Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract Background Total hip and knee arthroplasty are a highly performed surgery; however, patient satisfaction with surgery results and patient involvement in the decision-making process remains low. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are tools used in clinical practices to facilitate active patient involvement in healthcare decision-making. Nonetheless, PtDA effects have not been systematically evaluated for hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) decision-making. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effect of patient decision aids compared to alternative of care on quality and process of decision-making when provided to adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Methods This systematic review will follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. This protocol was reported based on the PRISMA-P checklist guidelines. Studies will be searched in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Eligible studies will be randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of PtDA on TJA decision-making. Descriptive and meta-analysis of outcomes will include decision quality (knowledge and values-based choice), decisional conflict, patient involvement, decision-making process satisfaction, actual decision made, health outcomes, and harm(s). Risk of bias will be evaluated with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool for RCTs. Quality and strength of recommendations will be appraised with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Discussion This review will provide a summary of RCT findings on PtDA effect on decision-making quality and process of adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Further, it will provide evidence comparing different types of PtDA used for TJA decision-making. This review is expected to inform further research on joint replacement decision-making quality and processes and on ways PtDAs facilitate shared decision-making for orthopedic surgery. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020171334

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Do published patient decision aids for end-of-life care address patients’ decision-making needs? A systematic review and critical appraisal

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 985-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgina Phillips ◽  
Kate Lifford ◽  
Adrian Edwards ◽  
Marlise Poolman ◽  
Natalie Joseph-Williams
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Needs ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

Background: Many decisions are made by patients in their last months of life, creating complex decision-making needs for these individuals. Identifying whether currently existing patient decision aids address the full range of these patient decision-making needs will better inform end-of-life decision support in clinical practice. Aims and design: This systematic review aimed to (a) identify the range of patients’ decision-making needs and (b) assess the extent to which patient decision aids address these needs. Data sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL electronic literature databases were searched (January 1990–January 2017), supplemented by hand-searching strategies. Eligible literature reported patient decision-making needs throughout end-of-life decision-making or were evaluations of patient decision aids. Identified decision aid content was mapped onto and assessed against all patient decision-making needs that were deemed ‘addressable’. Results: Twenty-two studies described patient needs, and seven end-of-life patient decision aids were identified. Patient needs were categorised, resulting in 48 ‘addressable’ needs. Mapping needs to patient decision aid content showed that 17 patient needs were insufficiently addressed by current patient decision aids. The most substantial gaps included inconsistent acknowledgement, elicitation and documentation of how patient needs varied individually for the level of information provided, the extent patients wanted to participate in decision-making, and the extent they wanted their families and associated healthcare professionals to participate. Conclusion: Patient decision-making needs are broad and varied. Currently developed patient decision aids are insufficiently addressing patient decision-making needs. Improving future end-of-life patient decision aid content through five key suggestions could improve patient-focused decision-making support at the end of life.

Mapping the Decision-Making Process for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Breast Cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise L. Beryl ◽  
Katharine A. S. Rendle ◽  
Meghan C. Halley ◽  
Katherine A. Gillespie ◽  
Suepattra G. May ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Health Care Organization ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Care Organization ◽  
Patient Decision Making

Background. Studies show adjuvant endocrine therapy increases survival and decreases risk of breast cancer recurrence for hormone receptor–positive tumors. Yet studies also suggest that adherence rates among women taking this therapy may be as low as 50% owing largely to adverse side effects. Despite these rates, research on longitudinal patient decision making regarding this therapy is scant. Objective. We sought to map the decision-making process for women considering and initiating adjuvant endocrine therapy, paying particular attention to patterns of uncertainty and decisional change over time. Methods. A longitudinal series of semistructured interviews conducted at a multispecialty health care organization in Northern California with 35 newly diagnosed patients eligible for adjuvant endocrine therapy were analyzed. Analysis led to the identification and indexing of 3 new decision-making constructs—decisional phase, decisional direction, and decisional resolve—which were then organized using a visual matrix and examined for patterns characterizing the decision-making process. Results. Our data reveal that most patients do not make a single, discrete decision to take or not take hormone therapy but rather traverse multiple decisional states, characterized by 1) phase, 2) direction, and 3) strength of resolve. Our analysis tracks these decisional states longitudinally using a grayscale-coded matrix. Our data show that decisional resolve wavers not just when considering therapy, as the existing concept of decisional conflict suggests, but even after initiating it, which may signal future decisions to forgo therapy. Conclusions. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, like other chronic care decisions, has a longer decision-making process and implementation period. Thus, theoretical, empirical, and clinical approaches should consider further exploring the new concept and measurement of decisional resolve, as it may help to improve subsequent medication adherence.

Prospective evaluation of a new patient decision aid to enhance prostate cancer screening decision-making.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
Michael Austin Brooks ◽  
Anita Misra-Hebert ◽  
Alexander Zajichek ◽  
Sigrid V. Carlsson ◽  
Jonas Hugosson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Psa Testing ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
The Impact

87 Background: We previously developed screening nomograms to predict 15-year risk of all-cause mortality, prostate cancer diagnosis, and prostate cancer mortality, and incorporated them into a graphical patient decision aid (PtDA). Our objective was to prospectively recruit primary care patients interested in shared-decision making regarding prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening and assess the impact of individualized counseling using our new PtDA. Methods: 50 patients from one internal medicine practice were enrolled in a single-arm sequential trial design, with face-to-face clinician counseling and questionnaires. Eligibility criteria included men age 50-69 years old and life expectancy > 10 years. Patients were excluded for a personal history of prostate cancer or PSA screening within the prior year. Participants completed baseline questionnaires regarding prior PSA testing, demographic information, health literacy, and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). They then received standardized counseling (based on large trial and epidemiologic data) regarding PSA screening, followed by individualized counseling using our new PtDA. Participants then made a screening decision, and completed a post decision questionnaire including a Decisional Conflict Scale. Results: The median age was 60 (IQR 54; 65). 41 (82%) had a prior PSA test, while 9 (18%) had not. 42 (84%) of participants received some education beyond high school, 41 (82%) demonstrated high health literacy, and 45 (90%) desired to have an active role in decision-making based on the CPS. After undergoing counseling, 34 (68%) participants chose to undergo initial or repeat PSA screening, 8 (16%) chose against future screening, and 8 (16%) remained uncertain. 45 (90%) participants found individualized counseling using the PtDA more useful than standardized counseling. Finally, patients reported reduced decisional conflict compared to historical controls (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our process of standardized counseling followed by individualized counseling using our new PtDA was effective in reducing decisional conflict. The majority of participants found the PtDA more useful for decision making than standardized counseling. Clinical trial information: NCT03387527.

“When offered to participate”: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 92-92
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Unger ◽  
Dawn L. Hershman ◽  
Cathee Till ◽  
Lori M. Minasian ◽  
Raymond U Osarogiagbon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Participation Rates ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Black Patients

92 Background: Patient participation in clinical trials (CTs) is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. The rate of CT participation for adult cancer patients is between 5%-8%; many CTs fail due to poor accrual. Although patient decision-making is a common focus of studies examining barriers to CT participation, the rate of trial participation for patients actually offered a CT is unknown. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines to identify studies over 20 years (1/1/2000-1/1/2020) that examined CT participation. Studies must have been conducted in the United States and specified the number of patients offered a CT and the number enrolled. We conducted a meta-analysis of single proportions using random effects. Rates were examined for both treatment trials and cancer control (CC) studies. We also compared the rates of enrollment between Black, Hispanic, and Asian patients versus White patients. Clinical care setting (academic vs community) was examined as a potential moderator. Results: We screened 3,241 unique citations and identified 35 (30 treatment and 5 CC) studies among which n = 9,759 patients were offered CT participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% CI: 49.4%-60.5%) of patients offered a CT agreed to enroll. Trial participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI: 48.9%-60.9%) and CC trials (55.3%, 95% CI: 38.9%-71.1%, p = .98); however, participation rates were significantly higher at academic centers (58.4%, 95% CI: 52.2%-64.5%) versus community centers (45.0%, 95% CI: 34.5%-55.7%, p = .04). In common studies, Black patients agreed to participate at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI: 46.8%-69.7%) compared to White patients (55.1%, 95% CI: 44.3%-65.6%, p = .88). Results were also similar comparing White versus Hispanic or Asian patients. The main reasons for non-participation were treatment choice or lack of interest. Conclusions: More than half of all cancer patients who are offered CTs do participate; results were consistent between major race/ethnicity groups. This finding upends several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve CT participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to existing trials and broadening trial eligibility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document