Joseph D Shirk1, Catherine M Crespi2, Josemanuel D Saucedo3, Sylvia Lambrechts3, Ely Dahan4, Robert Kaplan5, Christopher Saigal3. 1. UCLA Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 300 Stein Plaza, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. jshirk@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. UCLA Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 300 Stein Plaza, 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. 4. UCLA Anderson School of Management, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Health Services, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to medical decision making that can improve decisional quality. Decision aids are tools that facilitate SDM in the context of limited physician time; however, many decision aids do not incorporate preference measurement. OBJECTIVES: We aim to understand whether adding preference measurement to a standard patient educational intervention improves decisional quality and is feasible in a busy clinical setting. METHODS:Men with incident localized prostate cancer (n = 122) were recruited from the Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center urology clinic, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, and Harbor UCLA Medical Center from January 2011 to May 2015 and randomized to education with abrochure about prostate cancer treatment or software-based preference assessment in addition to the brochure. Men undergoing preference assessment received a report detailing the relative strength of their preferences for treatment outcomes used in review with their doctor. Participants completed instruments measuring decisional conflict, knowledge, SDM, and patient satisfaction with care before and/or after their cancer consultation. RESULTS:Baseline knowledge scores were low (mean 62%). The baseline mean total score on the Decisional Conflict Scale was 2.3 (±0.9), signifying moderate decisional conflict. Men undergoing preference assessment had a significantly larger decrease in decisional conflict total score (p = 0.023) and the Perceived Effective Decision Making subscale (p = 0.003) post consult compared with those receiving education only. Improvements in satisfaction with care, SDM, and knowledge were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level preference assessment is feasible in the clinic setting. Patients with prostate cancer who undergo preference assessment are more certain about their treatment decisions and report decreased levels of decisional conflict when making these decisions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to medical decision making that can improve decisional quality. Decision aids are tools that facilitate SDM in the context of limited physician time; however, many decision aids do not incorporate preference measurement. OBJECTIVES: We aim to understand whether adding preference measurement to a standard patient educational intervention improves decisional quality and is feasible in a busy clinical setting. METHODS:Men with incident localized prostate cancer (n = 122) were recruited from the Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center urology clinic, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, and Harbor UCLA Medical Center from January 2011 to May 2015 and randomized to education with a brochure about prostate cancer treatment or software-based preference assessment in addition to the brochure. Men undergoing preference assessment received a report detailing the relative strength of their preferences for treatment outcomes used in review with their doctor. Participants completed instruments measuring decisional conflict, knowledge, SDM, and patient satisfaction with care before and/or after their cancer consultation. RESULTS: Baseline knowledge scores were low (mean 62%). The baseline mean total score on the Decisional Conflict Scale was 2.3 (±0.9), signifying moderate decisional conflict. Men undergoing preference assessment had a significantly larger decrease in decisional conflict total score (p = 0.023) and the Perceived Effective Decision Making subscale (p = 0.003) post consult compared with those receiving education only. Improvements in satisfaction with care, SDM, and knowledge were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level preference assessment is feasible in the clinic setting. Patients with prostate cancer who undergo preference assessment are more certain about their treatment decisions and report decreased levels of decisional conflict when making these decisions.
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sue Stableford; Angela Fagerlin; John T Wei; Rodney L Dunn; Janet Ohene-Frempong; Karen Kelly-Blake; David R Rovner Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Annette M. O'Connor; George A. Wells; Peter Tugwell; Andreas Laupacis; Tom Elmslie; Elizabeth Drake Journal: Health Expect Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Anthony V D'Amico; Judd Moul; Peter R Carroll; Leon Sun; Deborah Lubeck; Ming-Hui Chen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carolina Chabrera; Adelaida Zabalegui; Marta Bonet; Mónica Caro; Joan Areal; Juan R González; Albert Font Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Marie-Anne Durand; Jana Witt; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Robert G Newcombe; Mary C Politi; Stephanie Sivell; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-12-31
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Annette M O'Connor; Carol Bennett; Robert G Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Elizabeth Drake; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Sara Khangura; Anton Saarimaki; Stephanie Sivell; Mareike Stiel; Steven J Bernstein; Nananda Col; Angela Coulter; Karen Eden; Martin Härter; Margaret Holmes Rovner; Nora Moumjid; Dawn Stacey; Richard Thomson; Tim Whelan; Trudy van der Weijden; Adrian Edwards Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sheila N Garland; Whitney Eriksen; Sarah Song; Joshua Dearing; Frances K Barg; Philip Gehrman; Jun J Mao Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Victoria Fischman; Eve Wittenberg; Sungjin A Song; Molly N Huston; Ramon A Franco; Phillip C Song; Matthew R Naunheim Journal: OTO Open Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Holly O Witteman; Ruth Ndjaboue; Gratianne Vaisson; Selma Chipenda Dansokho; Bob Arnold; John F P Bridges; Sandrine Comeau; Angela Fagerlin; Teresa Gavaruzzi; Melina Marcoux; Arwen Pieterse; Michael Pignone; Thierry Provencher; Charles Racine; Dean Regier; Charlotte Rochefort-Brihay; Praveen Thokala; Marieke Weernink; Douglas B White; Celia E Wills; Jesse Jansen Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 2.583