The impact of within-visit and pre-visit decision aids for localized prostate cancer on patient knowledge.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 151-151
Author(s):  
Jon Charles Tilburt ◽  
Joel E Pacyna ◽  
Kristin Cina ◽  
Daniel G. Petereit ◽  
Judith Salmon Kaur ◽  
...  

151 Background: Decision aids (DAs) for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict, but the relative effect of pre-visit and within-visit DAs is not known, and effect sizes for minority populations has not been estimated. Methods: We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-RCT in specialty urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, test the effect of pre-consultation and with-in consultation decision aids on patient knowledge immediately after specialty consultation compared to usual care. We used linear regression to estimate effects of each intervention arm, including the respective standard error, two-sided 95% confidence interval, and two-sided P value for testing the study’s hypotheses. Results: 103 patients were recruited and randomized to receive either the pre-visit decision aid, within-visit decision aid, or neither decision aids (usual care). In 2017 and 20018, we accrued similar numbers of men to pre-consultation aid (n = 37), during-consultation aid (n = 33) and usual care arms, respectively (n = 33). The median (range) age in years was 64 [49, 81]; 67.6% were White, 15.7% were Black or African American, 16.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1% were not reported. 47.6%, 45.6%, and 6.8% had a baseline clinical stage of T1, T2, and T3, respectively. The median [range] prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 8.0 [2.4, 53.7]. There were no clinically notable imbalances. We obtained usable data on 102 of the 103 patient-participants. The pre-visit decision aid arm showed a mean knowledge effect of 0.694 (0.636, 0.753). The within-visit decision arm showed a very similar mean knowledge effect of 0.686 (0.625, 0.748). The usual care arm showed a mean knowledge effect of 0.644 (0.582,0.705). The linear regression model showed, that, compared with usual care, neither intervention effect achieved statistical significance in the primary analysis (p = 0.24, 0.330, for pre-visit and within-visit, respectively). Conclusions: Modest knowledge gains of pre-visit and during-visit decision aids for prostate cancer treatment were not statistically significant. Clinical trial information: NCT03182998 .

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 1498-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarten Cuypers ◽  
Romy ED Lamers ◽  
Paul JM Kil ◽  
Julia J van Tol-Geerdink ◽  
Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan ◽  
...  

Implementation of patient’s decision aids in routine clinical care is generally low. This study evaluated uptake and usage of a novel Dutch web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid within the Prostate Cancer Patient Centered Care trial. From an estimated total patient sample of 1006 patients, 351 received a decision aid (35% implementation rate; hospital ranges 16%–84%). After receipt of the decision aid, most patients accessed the decision aid, utilized most functions, although not completely, and discussed the decision aid summary in a subsequent consultation with their care provider. Including nurses for dissemination of decision aids seemed to positively affect decision aid uptake. Once received, patients seemed able to use the decision aid and engage in shared decision-making as intended; however, decision aid uptake and complete usage of all decision aid components should be further improved. Prior to the diagnosis consultation, handing out of the decision aid should be prepared.


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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 185 (6) ◽  
pp. 397-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Karl Alfred Herrmann ◽  
Tammo Gsänger ◽  
Arne Strauss ◽  
Tereza Kertesz ◽  
Hendrik A. Wolff ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deb Feldman-Stewart ◽  
Christine Tong ◽  
Michael Brundage ◽  
Jackie Bender ◽  
John Robinson

Introduction: We sought to determine the experiences and preferences of prostate cancer patients related to the process of making their treatment decisions, and to the use of decision support.Methods: Population surveys were conducted in four Canadian provinces in 2014–2015. Each provincial cancer registry mailed surveys to a random sample of their prostate cancer patients diagnosed in late 2012. Three registries’ response rates were 46–55%; the fourth used a different recruiting strategy, producing a response rate of 13% (total n=1366).Results: Overall, 90% (n=1113) of respondents reported that they were involved in their treatment decisions. Twenty-three percent (n=247) of respondents wanted more help with the decision than they received and 52% of them (n=128) reported feeling wellinformed. Only 51% (n=653) of all respondents reported receiving any decision support, but an additional 34% (n=437) would want to if they were aware of its existence. A quarter (25%, n=316) of respondents found it helpful to use a decision aid, a type of decision support that provides assistance to decision processes and provides information, but 64% (n=828) reported never having heard of decision aids; 26% (n=176) of those who had never heard of decision aids wanted more help with the decision than they received compared to 13% (n=36) of those who had used a decision aid.Conclusions: The majority of respondents wanted to participate in their treatment decisions, but a portion wanted more help than they received. Half of those who wanted more help felt well-informed, thus, needed support beyond information. Decision aids have potential to provide information and support to the decision process.


2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe D. Violette ◽  
Thomas Agoritsas ◽  
Paul Alexander ◽  
Jarno Riikonen ◽  
Henrikki Santti ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document