R Schaffert1, U Dahinden2, T Hess2, A Bänziger3, P Kuntschik2, F Odoni2, P Spörri4, R T Strebel5, J Kamradt6, G Tenti7, A Mattei8, M Müntener9, S Subotic10, H-P Schmid11, P Rüesch3. 1. Institut für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Departement Gesundheit, Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Technikumstraße 81, 8401, Winterthur, Schweiz. rene.schaffert@zhaw.ch. 2. Departement für Angewandte Zukunftstechnologien, HTW Chur, Chur, Schweiz. 3. Institut für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Departement Gesundheit, Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Technikumstraße 81, 8401, Winterthur, Schweiz. 4. Urologisches Kompetenzzentrum soH, Kantonsspital Olten, Olten, Schweiz. 5. Urologie, Kantonsspital Graubünden, Chur, Schweiz. 6. Zentrum für Urologie und Nephrologie Bern, Bern, Schweiz. 7. Urologische Klinik, Kantonsspital Münsterlingen, Münsterlingen, Schweiz. 8. Klinik für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Schweiz. 9. Urologische Klinik, , Stadtspital Triemli Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz. 10. Urologische Universitätsklinik Basel, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Schweiz. 11. Klinik für Urologie, Kantonsspital St.Gallen, St.Gallen, Schweiz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the multitude of therapy options, the treatment decision after diagnosis of localized prostate cancer is challenging. Compared to printed booklets, web-based information technology offers more possibilities to tailor information to patients' individual needs. OBJECTIVES: To support the decision-making process as well as the communication with patients, we developed an online tutorial in a systematic process in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and then tested it in a pilot study. The study investigated users' satisfaction, the coverage of information needs, the preparation for decision making, and the subjective quality of the decision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on already existing information material, the online tutorial was developed in an iterative process using focus groups with patients and urologists. For the following evaluation in eight clinics a total of 87 patients were invited to access the platform and participate in the study. Of these patients, 56 used the tutorial and 48 answered both surveys (the first one 4 weeks after the first login and the second one 3 months after treatment decision). The surveys used the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS), the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Satisfaction with the tutorial is very high among patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. Users find their information needs sufficiently covered. Three months after the decision they felt that they were well prepared for the decision making (mean PDMS 75, standard deviation [SD] 23), they had low decisional conflict (mean DCS 9.6, SD 11), and almost no decisional regret (mean DRS 6.4, SD 9.6). Based on these findings, further use of the tutorial can be recommended.
BACKGROUND: Due to the multitude of therapy options, the treatment decision after diagnosis of localized prostate cancer is challenging. Compared to printed booklets, web-based information technology offers more possibilities to tailor information to patients' individual needs. OBJECTIVES: To support the decision-making process as well as the communication with patients, we developed an online tutorial in a systematic process in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and then tested it in a pilot study. The study investigated users' satisfaction, the coverage of information needs, the preparation for decision making, and the subjective quality of the decision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on already existing information material, the online tutorial was developed in an iterative process using focus groups with patients and urologists. For the following evaluation in eight clinics a total of 87 patients were invited to access the platform and participate in the study. Of these patients, 56 used the tutorial and 48 answered both surveys (the first one 4 weeks after the first login and the second one 3 months after treatment decision). The surveys used the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS), the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Satisfaction with the tutorial is very high among patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. Users find their information needs sufficiently covered. Three months after the decision they felt that they were well prepared for the decision making (mean PDMS 75, standard deviation [SD] 23), they had low decisional conflict (mean DCS 9.6, SD 11), and almost no decisional regret (mean DRS 6.4, SD 9.6). Based on these findings, further use of the tutorial can be recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision making; Health service research; Internet; Patient education; Prostate cancer
Authors: Deb Feldman-Stewart; Christine Tong; Rob Siemens; Shabbir Alibhai; Tom Pickles; John Robinson; Michael D Brundage Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: R Schaffert; P Rüesch; R Gügler; S Fischer; H-P Schmid; P Spörri; M Zurkirchen; R Ruszat Journal: Urologe A Date: 2011-09 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
Authors: Eric W Boberg; David H Gustafson; Robert P Hawkins; Kenneth P Offord; Courtney Koch; Kuang-Yi Wen; Kendra Kreutz; Andrew Salner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2003-03
Authors: Alan L Kaplan; Catherine M Crespi; Josemanuel D Saucedo; Sarah E Connor; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J Ferlay; E Steliarova-Foucher; J Lortet-Tieulent; S Rosso; J W W Coebergh; H Comber; D Forman; F Bray Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Nananda F Col; Carol L Bennett; Michael J Barry; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena; Julie H C Wu Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-01-28
Authors: Giacomo Novara; Enrico Checcucci; Alessandro Crestani; Alberto Abrate; Francesco Esperto; Nicola Pavan; Cosimo De Nunzio; Antonio Galfano; Gianluca Giannarini; Andrea Gregori; Giovanni Liguori; Riccardo Bartoletti; Francesco Porpiglia; Roberto Mario Scarpa; Alchiede Simonato; Carlo Trombetta; Andrea Tubaro; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; James W F Catto; Antonio Finelli; Adam W Glaser; John L Gore; Stacy Loeb; Todd M Morgan; Alicia K Morgans; Nicolas Mottet; Richard Neal; Tim O'Brien; Anobel Y Odisho; Thomas Powles; Ted A Skolarus; Angela B Smith; Bernadett Szabados; Zachary Klaassen; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096