PURPOSE: To examine, in prostate cancer patients, the effect of (1) being offered a choice between radiation doses in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and of (2) accepting or declining the possibility to choose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 150 patients with localized prostate cancer (T1-3N0M0) were offered a choice with a decision aid between two radiation doses (70 and 74 Gy). A control group of 144 patients received a fixed radiation dose without being offered a choice. Data were collected at baseline (before choice), before treatment (after choice), and 2 weeks and 6 months after treatment completion. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the involvement group, receiving the decision aid, showed increased participation in decision making (p < 0.001), increased knowledge (p < 0.001), and improved risk perception (p < 0.001); they were more satisfied with the quality of information (p = 0.002) and considered their treatment a more appropriate treatment (p = 0.01). No group differences were found in well-being (e.g., general health, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life, anxiety). Within the involvement group, accepting or declining the option to choose did not affect well-being either. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a choice of radiation dose, with a decision aid, increased involvement in decision making and led to a better-informed patient. In contrast to earlier suggestions, a strong increase in involvement did not result in improved well-being; and in contrast to clinical concerns, well-being was not negatively affected either, not even in those patients who preferred to leave the decision to their physician. This study shows that older patients, such as prostate cancer patients, can be informed and involved in decision making.
PURPOSE: To examine, in prostate cancerpatients, the effect of (1) being offered a choice between radiation doses in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and of (2) accepting or declining the possibility to choose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 150 patients with localized prostate cancer (T1-3N0M0) were offered a choice with a decision aid between two radiation doses (70 and 74 Gy). A control group of 144 patients received a fixed radiation dose without being offered a choice. Data were collected at baseline (before choice), before treatment (after choice), and 2 weeks and 6 months after treatment completion. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the involvement group, receiving the decision aid, showed increased participation in decision making (p < 0.001), increased knowledge (p < 0.001), and improved risk perception (p < 0.001); they were more satisfied with the quality of information (p = 0.002) and considered their treatment a more appropriate treatment (p = 0.01). No group differences were found in well-being (e.g., general health, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life, anxiety). Within the involvement group, accepting or declining the option to choose did not affect well-being either. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a choice of radiation dose, with a decision aid, increased involvement in decision making and led to a better-informed patient. In contrast to earlier suggestions, a strong increase in involvement did not result in improved well-being; and in contrast to clinical concerns, well-being was not negatively affected either, not even in those patients who preferred to leave the decision to their physician. This study shows that older patients, such as prostate cancerpatients, can be informed and involved in decision making.
Authors: Shannon M Nugent; Sara E Golden; Donald R Sullivan; Charles R Thomas; Juan Wisnivesky; Somnath Saha; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Joseph D Tariman; Ardith Doorenbos; Karen G Schepp; Seema Singhal; Donna L Berry Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Marigdalia K Ramirez-Fort; Paula Suarez; Margely Carrion; Daniel Weiner; Claire Postl; Ricardo Arribas; Mehdi Sayyah; Digna V Forta; M Junaid Niaz; Amir Feily; Christopher S Lange; Zhahedia Zhaythseff Fort; Migdalia Fort Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Anik Giguere; France Legare; Roland Grad; Pierre Pluye; François Rousseau; R Brian Haynes; Michel Cauchon; Michel Labrecque Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2011-03-09 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Isabel Syndikus; Rachel C Morgan; Matthew R Sydes; John D Graham; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: N B Jalil; P Y Lee; M Z Nor Afiah; K L Abdullah; F N S Mohd Azizi; N N S Abdul Rassip; T A Ong; C J Ng; Y K Lee; A T Cheong; A H Razack; M Saad; A Alip; R Malek; M Sundram; S Omar; J R Sathiyananthan; P Kumar Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Peggy A Hannon; Ranak B Trivedi; Laura M Bonner; Thuy T Vu; Carol Simons; Crystal A Kimmie; Elaine Y Hu; Chris Zipperer; Daniel W Lin Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 2.796