Prajakta Adsul1, Ricardo Wray2, Kyle Spradling2, Oussama Darwish2, Nancy Weaver2, Sameer Siddiqui2. 1. Department of Behavioral Science and Health Education, College for Public Health and Social Justice and Division of Urologic Surgery, School of Medicine (KS, OD, SS), Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: padsul@slu.edu. 2. Department of Behavioral Science and Health Education, College for Public Health and Social Justice and Division of Urologic Surgery, School of Medicine (KS, OD, SS), Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite established evidence for using patient decision aids, use with newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer remains limited partly due to variability in aid characteristics. We systematically reviewed decision aids for newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published peer reviewed journal articles, unpublished literature on the Internet and the Ottawa decision aids web repository were searched to identify decision aids designed for patients with prostate cancer facing treatment decisions. A total of 14 aids were included in study. Supplementary materials on aid development and published studies evaluating the aids were also included. We studied aids designed to help patients make specific choices among options and outcomes relevant to health status that were specific to prostate cancer treatment and in English only. Aids were reviewed for IPDAS (International Patient Decision Aid Standards) and additional standards deemed relevant to prostate cancer treatment decisions. They were also reviewed for novel criteria on the potential for implementation. Acceptable interrater reliability was achieved at Krippendorff α = 0.82. RESULTS: Eight of the 14 decision aids (57.1%) were developed in the United States, 6 (42.8%) were print based, 5 (35.7%) were web or print based and only 4 (28.5%) had been updated since 2013. Ten aids (71.4%) were targeted to prostate cancer stage. All discussed radiation and surgery, 10 (71.4%) discussed active surveillance and/or watchful waiting and 8 (57.1%) discussed hormonal therapy. Of the aids 64.2% presented balanced perspectives on treatment benefits and risks, and/or outcome probabilities associated with each option. Ten aids (71.4%) presented value clarification prompts for patients and steps to make treatment decisions. No aid was tested with physicians and only 4 (28.6%) were tested with patients. Nine aids (64.2%) provided details on data appraisal and 4 (28.6%) commented on the quality of evidence used. Seven of the 8 web or computer based aids (87.5%) provided patients with the opportunity to interact with the aid. All except 1 aid scored above the 9th grade reading level. No evidence on aid implementation in routine practice was available. CONCLUSIONS: As physicians look to adopt decision aids in practice, they may base the choice of aid on characteristics that correlate with patient socioeconomic and educational status, personal practice style and practice setting.
PURPOSE: Despite established evidence for using patient decision aids, use with newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer remains limited partly due to variability in aid characteristics. We systematically reviewed decision aids for newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published peer reviewed journal articles, unpublished literature on the Internet and the Ottawa decision aids web repository were searched to identify decision aids designed for patients with prostate cancer facing treatment decisions. A total of 14 aids were included in study. Supplementary materials on aid development and published studies evaluating the aids were also included. We studied aids designed to help patients make specific choices among options and outcomes relevant to health status that were specific to prostate cancer treatment and in English only. Aids were reviewed for IPDAS (International Patient Decision Aid Standards) and additional standards deemed relevant to prostate cancer treatment decisions. They were also reviewed for novel criteria on the potential for implementation. Acceptable interrater reliability was achieved at Krippendorff α = 0.82. RESULTS: Eight of the 14 decision aids (57.1%) were developed in the United States, 6 (42.8%) were print based, 5 (35.7%) were web or print based and only 4 (28.5%) had been updated since 2013. Ten aids (71.4%) were targeted to prostate cancer stage. All discussed radiation and surgery, 10 (71.4%) discussed active surveillance and/or watchful waiting and 8 (57.1%) discussed hormonal therapy. Of the aids 64.2% presented balanced perspectives on treatment benefits and risks, and/or outcome probabilities associated with each option. Ten aids (71.4%) presented value clarification prompts for patients and steps to make treatment decisions. No aid was tested with physicians and only 4 (28.6%) were tested with patients. Nine aids (64.2%) provided details on data appraisal and 4 (28.6%) commented on the quality of evidence used. Seven of the 8 web or computer based aids (87.5%) provided patients with the opportunity to interact with the aid. All except 1 aid scored above the 9th grade reading level. No evidence on aid implementation in routine practice was available. CONCLUSIONS: As physicians look to adopt decision aids in practice, they may base the choice of aid on characteristics that correlate with patient socioeconomic and educational status, personal practice style and practice setting.
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Kimberly M Davis; Tania Lobo; George Luta; Jun Shan; David Aaronson; David F Penson; Amethyst D Leimpeter; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Joseph D Shirk; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sylvia Lambrechts; Ely Dahan; Robert Kaplan; Christopher Saigal Journal: Patient Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Tammy Jiang; Christian H Stillson; Craig Evan Pollack; Linda Crossette; Michelle Ross; Archana Radhakrishnan; David Grande Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Charlotte J Hagerman; Paula G Bellini; Kim M Davis; Richard M Hoffman; David S Aaronson; Daniel Y Leigh; Riley E Zinar; David Penson; Stephen Van Den Eeden; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Kittie Pang; Margaret Fitch; Veronique Ouellet; Simone Chevalier; Darrel E Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Alan So; Simon Sutcliffe; Simon Tanguay; Fred Saad; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Margaret Fitch; Kittie Pang; Veronique Ouellet; Carmen Loiselle; Shabbir Alibhai; Simone Chevalier; Darrel E Drachenberg; Antonio Finelli; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Simon Sutcliffe; Alan So; Simon Tanguay; Fred Saad; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Maarten Cuypers; Romy E D Lamers; Paul J M Kil; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Marieke de Vries Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-05-12 Impact factor: 3.603