OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this trial was to compare usual patient education plus the Internet-based Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, vs. usual education alone, on conflict associated with decision making, plus explore time-to-treatment, and treatment choice. METHODS: A randomized, multi-center clinical trial was conducted with measures at baseline, 1-, and 6 months. Men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer (CaP) who sought consultation at urology, radiation oncology, or multi-disciplinary clinics in 4 geographically-distinct American cities were recruited. Intervention group participants used the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, a decision support system comprised of customized text and video coaching regarding potential outcomes, influential factors, and communication with care providers. The primary outcome, patient-reported decisional conflict, was evaluated over time using generalized estimating equations to fit generalized linear models. Additional outcomes, time-to-treatment, treatment choice, and program acceptability/usefulness, were explored. RESULTS: A total of 494 eligible men were randomized (266 intervention; 228 control). The intervention reduced adjusted decisional conflict over time compared with the control group, for the uncertainty score (estimate -3.61; (confidence interval, -7.01, 0.22), and values clarity (estimate -3.57; confidence interval (-5.85,-1.30). Borderline effect was seen for the total decisional conflict score (estimate -1.75; confidence interval (-3.61,0.11). Time-to-treatment was comparable between groups, while undecided men in the intervention group chose brachytherapy more often than in the control group. Acceptability and usefulness were highly rated. CONCLUSION: The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate is the first intervention to significantly reduce decisional conflict in a multi-center trial of American men with newly diagnosed localized CaP. Our findings support efficacy of P3P for addressing decision uncertainty and facilitating patient selection of a CaP treatment that is consistent with the patient values and preferences.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this trial was to compare usual patient education plus the Internet-based Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, vs. usual education alone, on conflict associated with decision making, plus explore time-to-treatment, and treatment choice. METHODS: A randomized, multi-center clinical trial was conducted with measures at baseline, 1-, and 6 months. Men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer (CaP) who sought consultation at urology, radiation oncology, or multi-disciplinary clinics in 4 geographically-distinct American cities were recruited. Intervention group participants used the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, a decision support system comprised of customized text and video coaching regarding potential outcomes, influential factors, and communication with care providers. The primary outcome, patient-reported decisional conflict, was evaluated over time using generalized estimating equations to fit generalized linear models. Additional outcomes, time-to-treatment, treatment choice, and program acceptability/usefulness, were explored. RESULTS: A total of 494 eligible men were randomized (266 intervention; 228 control). The intervention reduced adjusted decisional conflict over time compared with the control group, for the uncertainty score (estimate -3.61; (confidence interval, -7.01, 0.22), and values clarity (estimate -3.57; confidence interval (-5.85,-1.30). Borderline effect was seen for the total decisional conflict score (estimate -1.75; confidence interval (-3.61,0.11). Time-to-treatment was comparable between groups, while undecided men in the intervention group chose brachytherapy more often than in the control group. Acceptability and usefulness were highly rated. CONCLUSION: The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate is the first intervention to significantly reduce decisional conflict in a multi-center trial of American men with newly diagnosed localized CaP. Our findings support efficacy of P3P for addressing decision uncertainty and facilitating patient selection of a CaP treatment that is consistent with the patient values and preferences.
Authors: Michael A Diefenbach; Jenevie Dorsey; Robert G Uzzo; Gerald E Hanks; Richard E Greenberg; Eric Horwitz; Fredrick Newton; Paul F Engstrom Journal: Semin Urol Oncol Date: 2002-02
Authors: B Joyce Davison; Martin E Gleave; S Larry Goldenberg; Lesley F Degner; Doug Hoffart; Jonathan Berkowitz Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Donna L Berry; William J Ellis; Nancy Fugate Woods; Christina Schwien; Kristin H Mullen; Claire Yang Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Yael Symes; Lixin Song; Rachael G Heineman; Brittney D Barbosa; Kimberly Tatum; Giselle Greene; Mark Weaver; Ronald C Chen Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Donna L Berry; Fangxin Hong; Traci M Blonquist; Barbara Halpenny; Christopher P Filson; Viraj A Master; Martin G Sanda; Peter Chang; Gary W Chien; Randy A Jones; Tracey L Krupski; Seth Wolpin; Leslie Wilson; Julia H Hayes; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Mitchell Sokoloff; Prabhakara Somayaji Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: R Schaffert; U Dahinden; T Hess; A Bänziger; P Kuntschik; F Odoni; P Spörri; R T Strebel; J Kamradt; G Tenti; A Mattei; M Müntener; S Subotic; H-P Schmid; P Rüesch Journal: Urologe A Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Lixin Song; Christina Tyler; Margaret F Clayton; Eleanor Rodgiriguez-Rassi; Latorya Hill; Jinbing Bai; Raj Pruthi; Donald E Bailey Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-09-23
Authors: Michael R Gionfriddo; Aaron L Leppin; Juan P Brito; Annie Leblanc; Nilay D Shah; Victor M Montori Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 1.744