PURPOSE: To carry out a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer to facilitate decision making regarding risk management options. METHODS: This randomized trial, conducted through 6 familial cancer centers, compared the efficacy of tailored decision aid to that of a general educational pamphlet in preparing women for decision making. PARTICIPANTS: 131 women with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer or of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. OUTCOME MEASURES: Decisional conflict, knowledge about ovarian cancer risk management options, and psychological adjustment were reassessed at 3 time points. RESULTS: Compared to those who received the pamphlet (control), women who received the decision aid (intervention) were significantly more likely to report a high degree of acceptability of the educational material at both follow-up assessment time points. Findings indicate neither group experienced significant increases in psychological distress at either follow-up assessment time points relative to baseline. Two weeks postintervention, the intervention group demonstrated a significant decrease in decisional conflict compared to the control group (t = 2.4, P < 0.025) and a trend for a greater increase in knowledge about risk management options (t = 2.1, P = 0.037). No significant differences were found 6 months postintervention. CONCLUSION: This form of educational material is successful in increasing knowledge about risk management options and in reducing decisional conflict in the shorter term. The decision aid is an effective and acceptable strategy for patient education to facilitate an inclusive and informed decision-making process about managing ovarian cancer risk.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To carry out a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk of developing ovarian cancer to facilitate decision making regarding risk management options. METHODS: This randomized trial, conducted through 6 familial cancer centers, compared the efficacy of tailored decision aid to that of a general educational pamphlet in preparing women for decision making. PARTICIPANTS: 131 women with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer or of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. OUTCOME MEASURES: Decisional conflict, knowledge about ovarian cancer risk management options, and psychological adjustment were reassessed at 3 time points. RESULTS: Compared to those who received the pamphlet (control), women who received the decision aid (intervention) were significantly more likely to report a high degree of acceptability of the educational material at both follow-up assessment time points. Findings indicate neither group experienced significant increases in psychological distress at either follow-up assessment time points relative to baseline. Two weeks postintervention, the intervention group demonstrated a significant decrease in decisional conflict compared to the control group (t = 2.4, P < 0.025) and a trend for a greater increase in knowledge about risk management options (t = 2.1, P = 0.037). No significant differences were found 6 months postintervention. CONCLUSION: This form of educational material is successful in increasing knowledge about risk management options and in reducing decisional conflict in the shorter term. The decision aid is an effective and acceptable strategy for patient education to facilitate an inclusive and informed decision-making process about managing ovarian cancer risk.
Authors: Gillian W Hooker; Kara-Grace Leventhal; Tiffani DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; Clinton Finch; Erica Wahl; Jessica Rispoli Joines; Karen Brown; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Marc D Schwartz Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2010-09-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Julie O Culver; Deborah J MacDonald; Andrea A Thornton; Sharon R Sand; Marcia Grant; Deborah J Bowen; Harry Burke; Nellie Garcia; Kelly A Metcalfe; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Donna L Berry; Barbara Halpenny; Fangxin Hong; Seth Wolpin; William B Lober; Kenneth J Russell; William J Ellis; Usha Govindarajulu; Jaclyn Bosco; B Joyce Davison; Gerald Bennett; Martha K Terris; Andrea Barsevick; Daniel W Lin; Claire C Yang; Greg Swanson Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Maria C Katapodi; Valeria Viassolo; Maria Caiata-Zufferey; Christos Nikolaidis; Nicole Buerki; Karl Heinimann; Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz; Olivia Pagani; Pierre O Chappuis; Rosmarie Bührer-Landolt; Rossella Graffeo; Henrik Csaba Horváth; Christian Kurzeder; Manuela Rabaglio; Michael Scharfe; Corinne Urech; Tobias E Erlanger; Nicole Probst-Hensch Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-09-20
Authors: Marline G Harmsen; Miranda P Steenbeek; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Helena C van Doorn; Katja N Gaarenstroom; M Caroline Vos; Leon F A G Massuger; Joanne A de Hullu; Rosella P M G Hermens Journal: Health Expect Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 3.377