Ruben D Vromans1, Mies C van Eenbergen2, Steffen C Pauws3, Gijs Geleijnse4, Henk G van der Poel5, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse6, Emiel J Krahmer7. 1. Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands. Electronic address: r.d.vromans@uvt.nl. 2. Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Chronic Disease Management, Philips Research, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: g.geleijnse@iknl.nl. 5. Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands; Division of Psychosocial Research & Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Despite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools. OBJECTIVE: To identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990-2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified. RESULTS: International Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients' values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.
CONTEXT: Despite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools. OBJECTIVE: To identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990-2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified. RESULTS: International Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients' values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.
Authors: Laura B Oswald; Frank A Schumacher; Brian D Gonzalez; Kelvin A Moses; David F Penson; Alicia K Morgans Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Ruben Vromans; Kim Tenfelde; Steffen Pauws; Mies van Eenbergen; Ingeborg Mares-Engelberts; Galina Velikova; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Emiel Krahmer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ruben D Vromans; Saar Hommes; Felix J Clouth; Deborah N N Lo-Fo-Wong; Xander A A M Verbeek; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Steffen Pauws; Emiel Krahmer Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 3.298
Authors: Ruben D Vromans; Steffen C Pauws; Nadine Bol; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Emiel J Krahmer Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 2.796