Donna L Berry1, Qian Wang, Barbara Halpenny, Fangxin Hong. 1. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, The Phyllis F Cantor Center for Research in Nursing and Patient Care Services, Boston, MA 02215, USA. donna_berry@dfci.harvard.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe relationships between use of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) decision support system and patient characteristics, and perceived preparation for decision making (PrepDM), satisfaction and decisional regret in the context of prostate cancer treatment choice. METHODS:494 men with localized prostate cancer (LPC) were randomized to receive the P3P intervention or usual care and completed pre-treatment, 1-month and 6-month outcome measures. Multivariable linear regression models were fit for each outcome. RESULTS: Physician consult visits prior to enrollment, race/ethnicity, and use of clinic-provided books were significant predictors of perceived PrepDM at 1 month. Prior Internet use and PrepDM significantly predicted 6-month decision satisfaction. Decisional regret was significantly predicted by demographics, anxiety, PrepDM score, and EPIC bowel domain score at 6 months. Use of P3P did not predict any outcome. CONCLUSION: While the P3P intervention did not significantly affect the outcomes, pre-enrollment information and preparation were strong predictors of the 1- and 6-month outcomes. Decision regret was significantly influenced by personal characteristics and post-treatment symptoms/side effects. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Information received and used between biopsy and the treatment options consult visit is likely to make a difference in decision satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To describe relationships between use of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) decision support system and patient characteristics, and perceived preparation for decision making (PrepDM), satisfaction and decisional regret in the context of prostate cancer treatment choice. METHODS: 494 men with localized prostate cancer (LPC) were randomized to receive the P3P intervention or usual care and completed pre-treatment, 1-month and 6-month outcome measures. Multivariable linear regression models were fit for each outcome. RESULTS: Physician consult visits prior to enrollment, race/ethnicity, and use of clinic-provided books were significant predictors of perceived PrepDM at 1 month. Prior Internet use and PrepDM significantly predicted 6-month decision satisfaction. Decisional regret was significantly predicted by demographics, anxiety, PrepDM score, and EPIC bowel domain score at 6 months. Use of P3P did not predict any outcome. CONCLUSION: While the P3P intervention did not significantly affect the outcomes, pre-enrollment information and preparation were strong predictors of the 1- and 6-month outcomes. Decision regret was significantly influenced by personal characteristics and post-treatment symptoms/side effects. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Information received and used between biopsy and the treatment options consult visit is likely to make a difference in decision satisfaction.
Authors: M Holmes-Rovner; J Kroll; N Schmitt; D R Rovner; M L Breer; M L Rothert; G Padonu; G Talarczyk Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1996 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: A M O'Connor; P Tugwell; G A Wells; T Elmslie; E Jolly; G Hollingworth; R McPherson; H Bunn; I Graham; E Drake Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 1998-03
Authors: Donna L Berry; William J Ellis; Kenneth J Russell; John C Blasko; Nigel Bush; Brent Blumenstein; Paul H Lange Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Tracey L Krupski; Leon Sun; David M Albala; Marva M Price; Thomas J Polascik; Cary N Robertson; Alok K Tewari; Judd W Moul Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Jim C Hu; Lorna Kwan; Tracey L Krupski; Jennifer T Anger; Sally L Maliski; Sarah Connor; Mark S Litwin Journal: Urology Date: 2008-03-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; David C Miller; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Çağatay Doğan; Hamza M Gültekin; Sarper M Erdoğan; Hamdi Özkara; Zübeyr Talat; Ahmet N Erözenci; Can Öbek Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-09-21
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: Louie E Ross; Daniel L Howard; Janice V Bowie; Roland J Thorpe; Ballington L Kinlock; Carol Burt; Thomas A LaVeist Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Jan Willem H Leer; Carl J Wijburg; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Emile J van Lin; J Alfred Witjes; Peep F M Stalmeier Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-05-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Mary Lo; Jack A Clark; Peter C Albertsen; Michael J Barry; Michael Goodman; David F Penson; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; Ann S Hamilton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544