David C Johnson1, Dana E Mueller2, Allison M Deal3, Mary W Dunn2, Angela B Smith2, Michael E Woods2, Eric M Wallen2, Raj S Pruthi2, Matthew E Nielsen4. 1. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: david.c.johnson1@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Outcomes Research Group, Multidisciplinary Genitourinary Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics Core Facility, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Department of Urology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cancer Outcomes Research Group, Multidisciplinary Genitourinary Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Men with clinically localized prostate cancer face an archetypal "preference sensitive" treatment decision. A shared decision making process incorporating patient values and preferences is paramount. We evaluated the benefit of a novel decision making application, and investigated associations between patient preferences and treatment choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a novel, web based application that provides education, preference measurement and personalized decision analysis for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Preferences are measured using conjoint analysis. The application ranks treatment options according to their "fit" (expected value) based on clinical factors and personal preferences, and serves as the basis for shared decision making during the consultation. We administered the decisional conflict scale before and after completion of the application. Additionally, we compared post-visit perceptions of shared decision making between a baseline "usual care" cohort and a cohort seen after the application was integrated into clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 109 men completed the application before their consultation, and had decisional conflict measured before and after use. Overall decisional conflict decreased by 37% (p <0.0001). Analysis of the decisional conflict subscales revealed statistically significant improvements in all 5 domains. Patients completing the decision making application (33) felt more included in (88% vs 57%, p=0.01) and jointly responsible for (94% vs 52%, p <0.0001) the decision about further treatment compared to those receiving usual care (24). More patients who completed the application strongly agreed that different treatment options were discussed (94% vs 74%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this web based intervention was associated with decreased decisional conflict and enhanced elements of shared decision making.
PURPOSE:Men with clinically localized prostate cancer face an archetypal "preference sensitive" treatment decision. A shared decision making process incorporating patient values and preferences is paramount. We evaluated the benefit of a novel decision making application, and investigated associations between patient preferences and treatment choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a novel, web based application that provides education, preference measurement and personalized decision analysis for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Preferences are measured using conjoint analysis. The application ranks treatment options according to their "fit" (expected value) based on clinical factors and personal preferences, and serves as the basis for shared decision making during the consultation. We administered the decisional conflict scale before and after completion of the application. Additionally, we compared post-visit perceptions of shared decision making between a baseline "usual care" cohort and a cohort seen after the application was integrated into clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 109 men completed the application before their consultation, and had decisional conflict measured before and after use. Overall decisional conflict decreased by 37% (p <0.0001). Analysis of the decisional conflict subscales revealed statistically significant improvements in all 5 domains. Patients completing the decision making application (33) felt more included in (88% vs 57%, p=0.01) and jointly responsible for (94% vs 52%, p <0.0001) the decision about further treatment compared to those receiving usual care (24). More patients who completed the application strongly agreed that different treatment options were discussed (94% vs 74%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this web based intervention was associated with decreased decisional conflict and enhanced elements of shared decision making.
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: Emily C Serrell; Moritz Hansen; Greg Mills; Andrew Perry; Tracy Robbins; Melanie Feinberg; Scot C Remick; Lisa Beaule; Matt Hayn; Tom Kinkead; Paul K J Han; Jesse D Sammon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Michael A Diefenbach; Catherine Benedict; Suzanne M Miller; Annette L Stanton; Mary E Ropka; Kuang-Yi Wen; Linda G Fleisher; Nihal E Mohamed; Simon J Hall Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Kevin Mertz; Romil F Shah; Sara L Eppler; Jeffrey Yao; Marc Safran; Ariel Palanca; Serena S Hu; Michael Gardner; Derek F Amanatullah; Robin N Kamal Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Jennifer Anne Whitty; Liana Fraenkel; Christopher S Saigal; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Dean A Regier; Deborah A Marshall Journal: Patient Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Joaquin Michel; Jorge Ballon; Sarah E Connor; David C Johnson; Jonathan Bergman; Christopher S Saigal; Mark S Litwin; Dana L Alden Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2021-05-27