Kristen McAlpine1, Krystina B Lewis1, Lyndal J Trevena1, Dawn Stacey1. 1. Kristen McAlpine, Krystina B. Lewis, and Dawn Stacey, University of Ottawa; Dawn Stacey, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and Lyndal J. Trevena, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids when used with patients who face cancer-related decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened the 105 trials in the original 2017 Cochrane review to identify eligible trials of patient decision aids across the cancer continuum. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice and decision-making process. Secondary outcomes were patient behavior and health system effects. A meta-analysis was conducted for similar outcome measures. RESULTS: Forty-six trials evaluated patient decision aids for cancer care, including 27 on screening decisions (59%), 12 on treatments (26%), four on genetic testing (9%), and three on prevention (6%). Common decisions were aboutprostate cancer screening (30%), colorectal cancer screening (22%), breast cancer treatment (13%), and prostate cancer treatment (9%). Compared with the control groups (usual care or alternative interventions), the patient decision aid group improved the match between the chosen option and the features that mattered most to the patient as demonstrated by improved knowledge (weighted mean difference, 12.88 of 100; 95% CI, 9.87 to 15.89; 24 trials), accurate risk perception (risk ratio [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.56; six trials), and value-choice agreement (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.57 to 4.84; nine trials). Compared with controls, the patient decision aid group improved the decision-making process with decreased decisional conflict (weighted mean difference, -9.56 of 100; 95% CI, -13.90 to -5.23; 12 trials), reduced clinician-controlled decision making (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79; eight trials), and fewer patients being indecisive (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.78; nine trials). CONCLUSION: Patient decision aids improve the attributes of the choice made and decision-making process for patients who face cancer-related decisions.
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids when used with patients who face cancer-related decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened the 105 trials in the original 2017 Cochrane review to identify eligible trials of patient decision aids across the cancer continuum. Primary outcomes were attributes of the choice and decision-making process. Secondary outcomes were patient behavior and health system effects. A meta-analysis was conducted for similar outcome measures. RESULTS: Forty-six trials evaluated patient decision aids for cancer care, including 27 on screening decisions (59%), 12 on treatments (26%), four on genetic testing (9%), and three on prevention (6%). Common decisions were aboutprostate cancer screening (30%), colorectal cancer screening (22%), breast cancer treatment (13%), and prostate cancer treatment (9%). Compared with the control groups (usual care or alternative interventions), the patient decision aid group improved the match between the chosen option and the features that mattered most to the patient as demonstrated by improved knowledge (weighted mean difference, 12.88 of 100; 95% CI, 9.87 to 15.89; 24 trials), accurate risk perception (risk ratio [RR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.56; six trials), and value-choice agreement (RR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.57 to 4.84; nine trials). Compared with controls, the patient decision aid group improved the decision-making process with decreased decisional conflict (weighted mean difference, -9.56 of 100; 95% CI, -13.90 to -5.23; 12 trials), reduced clinician-controlled decision making (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79; eight trials), and fewer patients being indecisive (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.78; nine trials). CONCLUSION:Patient decision aids improve the attributes of the choice made and decision-making process for patients who face cancer-related decisions.
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Genet Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Helle Sorensen von Essen; Frantz Rom Poulsen; Rikke Hedegaard Dahlrot; Karin Piil; Karina Dahl Steffensen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Anna Gaysynsky; Camella J Rising; Neha Trivedi; Kelly D Blake; Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou; April Oh; Robin C Vanderpool Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 2.506