scholarly journals Implementation of a patient decision aid for men with localized prostate cancer: evaluation of patient outcomes and practice variation

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Jennifer Smylie ◽  
Laura Boland ◽  
Rodney H. Breau ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. E10-E21
Author(s):  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Rodney H. Breau ◽  
Nicole Baba ◽  
Terry Blackmore ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben Danïel Vromans ◽  
Mies van Eenbergen ◽  
Steffen Pauws ◽  
Gijs Geleijnse ◽  
Henk van der Poel ◽  
...  

Decision aids (DAs) have been developed for patients with localized prostate cancer. DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria (IPDAS) and various communicative aspects (CAs). Adherence to the IPDAS criteria varied greatly across the DAs. The use of CAs varied substantially by the DAs. CAs such as personalization, interaction, and multimodality can further improve DAs for localized prostate cancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87
Author(s):  
Michael Austin Brooks ◽  
Anita Misra-Hebert ◽  
Alexander Zajichek ◽  
Sigrid V. Carlsson ◽  
Jonas Hugosson ◽  
...  

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 1194-1207
Author(s):  
Julia J van Tol-Geerdink ◽  
Inge M van Oort ◽  
Diederik M Somford ◽  
Carl J Wijburg ◽  
Arno Geboers ◽  
...  

For the treatment choice of localized prostate cancer, effective patient decision aids have been developed. The implementation of decision aids in routine care, however, lags behind. Main known barriers are lack of confidence in the tool, lack of training on its use, lack of resources and lack of time. A new implementation strategy addresses these barriers. Using this implementation strategy, the implementation rate of a decision aid was measured in eight hospitals and questionnaires were filled out by 24 care providers and 255 patients. The average implementation rate was 60 per cent (range 31%–100%). Hardly any barriers remained for care providers. Patients who did not use the decision aid appeared to be more unwilling than unable to use the decision aid. By addressing known barriers, that is, informing care providers on the effectiveness of the decision aid, providing instructions on its use, embedding it in the existing workflow and making it available free of charge, a successful implementation of a prostate cancer decision aid was reached.


2011 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 521-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Puma Sundaresan ◽  
Sandra Turner ◽  
Andrew Kneebone ◽  
Maria Pearse ◽  
Phyllis Butow

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 1131-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hoda HM Al-Itejawi ◽  
Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan ◽  
André N Vis ◽  
Jakko A Nieuwenhuijzen ◽  
Myrna JA Hofstee ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document