PURPOSE: To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to thePreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories. RESULTS:Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups (P < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; P < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months (P < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups (P < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; P < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months (P < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.
Authors: Daniel R Richardson; Norah L Crossnohere; Jaein Seo; Elihu Estey; Bernadette O'Donoghue; B Douglas Smith; John F P Bridges Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Janet Jull; Sascha Köpke; Maureen Smith; Meg Carley; Jeanette Finderup; Anne C Rahn; Laura Boland; Sandra Dunn; Andrew A Dwyer; Jürgen Kasper; Simone Maria Kienlin; France Légaré; Krystina B Lewis; Anne Lyddiatt; Claudia Rutherford; Junqiang Zhao; Tamara Rader; Ian D Graham; Dawn Stacey Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Ellen Krueger; Ekin Secinti; Wei Wu; Nasser Hanna; Gregory Durm; Lawrence Einhorn; Shadia Jalal; Catherine E Mosher Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Donna L Berry; Fangxin Hong; Traci M Blonquist; Barbara Halpenny; Niya Xiong; 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 Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 2.954
Authors: G E Collée; B J van der Wilk; J J B van Lanschot; J J Busschbach; L Timmermans; S M Lagarde; L W Kranenburg Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Wiebke Mohr; Anika Rädke; Adel Afi; Franka Mühlichen; Moritz Platen; Bernhard Michalowsky; Wolfgang Hoffmann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Svetlana V Doubova; Ingrid Patricia Martinez-Vega; Marcos Gutiérrez-De-la-Barrera; Claudia Infante-Castañeda; Carlos E Aranda-Flores; Adriana Monroy; Laura Gómez-Laguna; Felicia Marie Knaul; Ricardo Pérez-Cuevas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 2.692