Sarah T Hawley1,2, Lisa Newman3, Jennifer J Griggs4, Mary Ann Kosir5, Steven J Katz4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, 4th Floor, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. sarahawl@umich.edu. 2. Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. sarahawl@umich.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, 4th Floor, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 5. Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Early-stage breast cancer patients face a series of complex treatment decisions, with the first typically being choice of locoregional treatment. There is a need for tools to support patients in this decision-making process. METHODS: We developed an innovative, online locoregional treatment tool based on International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria. We evaluated its impact on patient knowledge about treatment and appraisal of decision making in a pilot study using a clinical sample of newly diagnosed, breast cancer patients who were randomized to view the decision aid website first or complete a survey prior to viewing the decision aid. Differences in knowledge and decision appraisal between the two groups were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Computer-generated preferences for treatment were compared with patients' stated preferences using chi-square tests. RESULTS:One hundred and one newly diagnosed patients were randomized to view the website first or take a survey first. Women who viewed the website first had slightly higher, though not significantly, knowledge about surgery (p = 0.29) and reconstruction (p = 0.10) than the survey-first group. Those who viewed the website first also appraised their decision process significantly more favorably than did those who took the survey first (p < 0.05 for most decision outcomes). There was very good concordance between computer-suggested and stated treatment preferences. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that an interactive decision tool shows promise for supporting early-stage breast cancer patients with complicated treatment decision making.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Early-stage breast cancerpatients face a series of complex treatment decisions, with the first typically being choice of locoregional treatment. There is a need for tools to support patients in this decision-making process. METHODS: We developed an innovative, online locoregional treatment tool based on International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria. We evaluated its impact on patient knowledge about treatment and appraisal of decision making in a pilot study using a clinical sample of newly diagnosed, breast cancerpatients who were randomized to view the decision aid website first or complete a survey prior to viewing the decision aid. Differences in knowledge and decision appraisal between the two groups were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests. Computer-generated preferences for treatment were compared with patients' stated preferences using chi-square tests. RESULTS: One hundred and one newly diagnosed patients were randomized to view the website first or take a survey first. Women who viewed the website first had slightly higher, though not significantly, knowledge about surgery (p = 0.29) and reconstruction (p = 0.10) than the survey-first group. Those who viewed the website first also appraised their decision process significantly more favorably than did those who took the survey first (p < 0.05 for most decision outcomes). There was very good concordance between computer-suggested and stated treatment preferences. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that an interactive decision tool shows promise for supporting early-stage breast cancerpatients with complicated treatment decision making.
Authors: A Recht; S B Edge; L J Solin; D S Robinson; A Estabrook; R E Fine; G F Fleming; S Formenti; C Hudis; J J Kirshner; D A Krause; R R Kuske; A S Langer; G W Sledge; T J Whelan; D G Pfister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Molenaar; M A Sprangers; E J Rutgers; E J Luiten; J Mulder; P M Bossuyt; J J van Everdingen; P Oosterveld; H C de Haes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Edward Guadagnoli; Mary Beth Landrum; Catherine Borbas; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Monica Morrow; Eric A Strom; Lawrence W Bassett; D David Dershaw; Barbara Fowble; Armando Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Frances O'Malley; Stuart J Schnitt; S Eva Singletary; David P Winchester Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Yun Li; Lawrence C An; Kenneth Resnicow; Nancy K Janz; Michael S Sabel; Kevin C Ward; Angela Fagerlin; Monica Morrow; Reshma Jagsi; Timothy P Hofer; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kristina Demas Woodhouse; Katie Tremont; Anil Vachani; Marilyn M Schapira; Neha Vapiwala; Charles B Simone; Abigail T Berman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Karen R Sepucha; Aisha T Langford; Jeffrey K Belkora; Yuchiao Chang; Beverly Moy; Ann H Partridge; Clara N Lee Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Barbara L Smith; Sara Frederick; Anna Mitarotondo; Deborah A Kashy; Laurie J Kirstein Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Clara Nan-Hi Lee; Allison M Deal; Ruth Huh; Peter Anthony Ubel; Yuen-Jong Liu; Lillian Blizard; Caprice Hunt; Michael Patrick Pignone Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Yun Li; L Alexandra Jeanpierre; Stefanie Goodell; Reshma Jagsi; Kevin C Ward; Michael S Sabel; Steven J Katz Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2017-02-03