Kristen McAlpine1, Rodney H Breau1,2, Dawn Stacey2,3, Christopher Knee1,2, Michael A S Jewett4, Philippe D Violette5, Patrick O Richard6, Ilias Cagiannos1,2, Christopher Morash1,2, Luke T Lavallée1,2. 1. Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. 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. Departments of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact and Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 6. Division of Urology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making incorporates patient's values and preferences to achieve high-quality decisions. The objective of this study was to develop an acceptable patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of small renal masses (SRMs). METHODS: The International Patient Decision Aids Standards were used to guide an evidence-based development process. Management options included active surveillance, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy. A literature review was performed to provide incidence rates for outcomes of each option. Once a prototype was complete, alpha-testing was performed using a 10-question survey to assess acceptability with patients, patient advocates, urologists, and methodological experts. The primary outcome was acceptability of the decision aid. RESULTS: A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of SRMs. Acceptability testing was performed with 20 patients, 10 urologists, two patient advocates, and one methodological expert. Responders indicated the decision aid was appropriate in length (82%, 27 of 33), well-balanced (82%, 27 of 33), and had language that was easy to follow (94%, 31 of 33). All patient responders felt the decision aid would have been helpful during their consultation and would recommend the decision aid for future patients (100%, 20 of 20). Most urologists reported they intend to use the decision aid (90%, 9 of 10). CONCLUSIONS: A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for management of SRMs. This clinical tool was acceptable with patients, patient advocates, and urologists and is freely available at: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decaids.html.
INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making incorporates patient's values and preferences to achieve high-quality decisions. The objective of this study was to develop an acceptable patient decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of small renal masses (SRMs). METHODS: The International Patient Decision Aids Standards were used to guide an evidence-based development process. Management options included active surveillance, thermal ablation, partial nephrectomy, and radical nephrectomy. A literature review was performed to provide incidence rates for outcomes of each option. Once a prototype was complete, alpha-testing was performed using a 10-question survey to assess acceptability with patients, patient advocates, urologists, and methodological experts. The primary outcome was acceptability of the decision aid. RESULTS: A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for the management of SRMs. Acceptability testing was performed with 20 patients, 10 urologists, two patient advocates, and one methodological expert. Responders indicated the decision aid was appropriate in length (82%, 27 of 33), well-balanced (82%, 27 of 33), and had language that was easy to follow (94%, 31 of 33). All patient responders felt the decision aid would have been helpful during their consultation and would recommend the decision aid for future patients (100%, 20 of 20). Most urologists reported they intend to use the decision aid (90%, 9 of 10). CONCLUSIONS: A novel patient decision aid was created to facilitate shared decision-making for management of SRMs. This clinical tool was acceptable with patients, patient advocates, and urologists and is freely available at: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decaids.html.
Authors: Patrick O Richard; Philippe D Violette; Bimal Bhindi; Rodney H Breau; Wassim Kassouf; Luke T Lavallée; Michael Jewett; John R Kachura; Anil Kapoor; Maxine Noel-Lamy; Michael Ordon; Stephen E Pautler; Frédéric Pouliot; Alan I So; Ricardo A Rendon; Simon Tanguay; Christine Collins; Maryam Kandi; Bobby Shayegan; Andrew Weller; Antonio Finelli; Andrea Kokorovic; Jay Nayak Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 1.862
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: David A Ossin; Emily C Carter; Rufus Cartwright; Philippe D Violette; Shilpa Iyer; Geraldine T Klein; Sangeeta Senapati; Zachary Klaassen; Sylvia M Botros Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 14.432
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
Authors: Douglas Cheung; Jed Frankel; Pavinder Tut; Maria Komisarenko; Lisa Martin; Michael Jewett; Antonio Finelli Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052