Kristen McAlpine1, Rodney H Breau2, Dawn Stacey3, Christopher Knee2, Michael A S Jewett4, Ilias Cagiannos2, Christopher Morash2, Luke T Lavallée5. 1. Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Departments of Surgery (Urology) and Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: lulavallee@toh.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient decision aids are structured clinical tools that facilitate shared decision-making. In urology, the decision between partial and radical nephrectomy for a renal mass can be difficult. We sought to develop and evaluate a decision aid for patients with a localized renal mass considering surgery. This paper describes the development process and acceptability testing of our patient decision aid. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision aid was systematically created using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. Review of the literature identified evidence regarding patient-important outcomes of partial and radical nephrectomy. A mixed methods survey was designed to assess acceptability of the decision aid. Kidney cancer survivors, patient advocates, methodological experts, and urologists were recruited to evaluate the decision aid. The primary outcome was the acceptability of the decision aid reported by survey responders. RESULTS: An evidence-based decision aid was created. Included benefits were overall survival, cancer-free survival, and length of hospital stay. Included harms were postoperative bleeding, urine leak, stage 3 renal failure, renal replacement therapy, and flank bulge. The decision aid met the International Patient Decision Aids Standards defining (6 of 6), certification (6 of 6), and quality criteria (21 of 23). Results of acceptability testing were highly favorable. Responders (n = 22) reported the decision aid had acceptable language (91%), an appropriate length (82%), and presented balanced options (91%). Nine of 11 urologists (82%) reported intended use with future patients. CONCLUSIONS: A novel, evidence-based decision aid was created for patients with renal masses considering surgery. The decision aid is available at https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/AZsumm.php?ID=1913. A separate decision aid addressing the management of small renal masses is currently under development.
INTRODUCTION:Patient decision aids are structured clinical tools that facilitate shared decision-making. In urology, the decision between partial and radical nephrectomy for a renal mass can be difficult. We sought to develop and evaluate a decision aid for patients with a localized renal mass considering surgery. This paper describes the development process and acceptability testing of our patient decision aid. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision aid was systematically created using the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. Review of the literature identified evidence regarding patient-important outcomes of partial and radical nephrectomy. A mixed methods survey was designed to assess acceptability of the decision aid. Kidney cancer survivors, patient advocates, methodological experts, and urologists were recruited to evaluate the decision aid. The primary outcome was the acceptability of the decision aid reported by survey responders. RESULTS: An evidence-based decision aid was created. Included benefits were overall survival, cancer-free survival, and length of hospital stay. Included harms were postoperative bleeding, urine leak, stage 3 renal failure, renal replacement therapy, and flank bulge. The decision aid met the International Patient Decision Aids Standards defining (6 of 6), certification (6 of 6), and quality criteria (21 of 23). Results of acceptability testing were highly favorable. Responders (n = 22) reported the decision aid had acceptable language (91%), an appropriate length (82%), and presented balanced options (91%). Nine of 11 urologists (82%) reported intended use with future patients. CONCLUSIONS: A novel, evidence-based decision aid was created for patients with renal masses considering surgery. The decision aid is available at https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/AZsumm.php?ID=1913. A separate decision aid addressing the management of small renal masses is currently under development.
Authors: David Bouhadana; David-Dan Nguyen; Brendan Raizenne; Joe Schwarcz; Harvey Gordon; Bilal Chughtai; Dean S Elterman; Luke T Lavallée; Paul Martin; Kristen McAlpine; Ryan Paterson; Hassan Razvi; Kevin C Zorn; Naeem Bhojani Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Shailin A Thomas; Mutita Siriruchatanon; Stephanie L Albert; Marc Bjurlin; Jason C Hoffmann; Aisha Langford; R Scott Braithwaite; Danil V Makarov; Angela Fagerlin; Stella K Kang Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 6.240
Authors: Kelsey Binion; Andrew Miller; Rosalia Misseri; Martin Kaefer; Krista Longtin; Aaron Carroll; Sarah E Wiehe; Katherine H Chan Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 1.921