C Groeben1, M Baunacke1, A Borkowetz1, S Kliesch2, C Wülfing3, A Ihrig4, J Huber5. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. 2. Centrum für Reproduktionsmedizin und Andrologie, Abteilung für Klinische Andrologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland. 3. Abteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Deutschland. 4. Sektion Psychoonkologie, Klinik für Allgemeine Innere Medizin und Psychosomatik, Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 5. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. johannes.huber@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment decision making remains a complex task for localized prostate cancer. Decision aids for patients can support the medical consultation. However, it is not known if German urologists accept decision aids for patients. Comparative data exist from a current survey among american urologists and radio oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October through November 2014 we conducted an online survey consisting of 11 multiple-choice questions and an optional free text commentary among the members of DGU and BDU. All data was processed anonymously. We received 464 complete responses for a 6.6 % return rate. For group comparison we applied the Chi2-test. RESULTS: Respondents' median age was 50 (range 26-87) years and 15 % were female. 7 % were residents, 31 % employed at a clinic, and 57 % in private practice. Due to the low response rate of younger colleagues the results were not representative for the basic population. Regardless of age (p = 0.2) and professional environment (p = 1) shared decision making was preferred by 89 %. When counseling their patients with localized prostate cancer 20 % relied exclusively on conversation. To support their conversation 63 % used print media, 49 % decision aids, 33 % contact offers to support groups, 24 % Internet resources and 13 % video material. From using decision aids 86 % expected positive effects for patients and 78 % for physicians (p = 0.017). 15 % expected a change of the treatment decision. 77 % would motivate their patients to use a decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the opinion of american urologists and radio oncologists the acceptance of decision aids for patients among German urologists is significantly higher.
BACKGROUND: Treatment decision making remains a complex task for localized prostate cancer. Decision aids for patients can support the medical consultation. However, it is not known if German urologists accept decision aids for patients. Comparative data exist from a current survey among american urologists and radio oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From October through November 2014 we conducted an online survey consisting of 11 multiple-choice questions and an optional free text commentary among the members of DGU and BDU. All data was processed anonymously. We received 464 complete responses for a 6.6 % return rate. For group comparison we applied the Chi2-test. RESULTS: Respondents' median age was 50 (range 26-87) years and 15 % were female. 7 % were residents, 31 % employed at a clinic, and 57 % in private practice. Due to the low response rate of younger colleagues the results were not representative for the basic population. Regardless of age (p = 0.2) and professional environment (p = 1) shared decision making was preferred by 89 %. When counseling their patients with localized prostate cancer 20 % relied exclusively on conversation. To support their conversation 63 % used print media, 49 % decision aids, 33 % contact offers to support groups, 24 % Internet resources and 13 % video material. From using decision aids 86 % expected positive effects for patients and 78 % for physicians (p = 0.017). 15 % expected a change of the treatment decision. 77 % would motivate their patients to use a decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the opinion of american urologists and radio oncologists the acceptance of decision aids for patients among German urologists is significantly higher.
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andreas Ihrig; Monika Keller; Mechthild Hartmann; Jürgen Debus; Jesco Pfitzenmaier; Boris Hadaschik; Markus Hohenfellner; Wolfgang Herzog; Johannes Huber Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Johannes Hamann; Christiane Bieber; Glyn Elwyn; Eva Wartner; Elisabeth Hörlein; Werner Kissling; Christfried Toegel; Hendrik Berth; Klaus Linde; Antonius Schneider Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Philippe D Violette; Thomas Agoritsas; Paul Alexander; Jarno Riikonen; Henrikki Santti; Arnav Agarwal; Neera Bhatnagar; Philipp Dahm; Victor Montori; Gordon H Guyatt; Kari A O Tikkinen Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: R Gillitzer; C Hampel; C Thomas; F Schmidt; S W Melchior; S Pahernik; H Schmidberger; J W Thüroff Journal: Urologe A Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: C Groeben; A Ihrig; T Hölscher; T Krones; E Kessler; S Kliesch; C Wülfing; R Koch; M P Wirth; J Huber Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 0.639