Jordan D Hildenbrand1, Debra M Davis2, Areej El-Jawahri3, Kris W Herring2, Susan C Locke2, Kathryn I Pollak4, Gregory P Samsa5, Karen E Steinhauser4, Jesse D Troy2, Peter A Ubel6, Thomas W Leblanc7,8. 1. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 6. Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. 7. Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. thomas.leblanc@duke.edu. 8. Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. thomas.leblanc@duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by a poor prognosis but also a paradoxical possibility of cure. This renders decision-making complex and imminent. Unfortunately, many patients with AML misestimate their prognosis and treatment risk. While decision aids can improve illness understanding and reduce decisional conflict, there are no validated decision aids for AML. We developed and tested a novel AML decision aid (NCT03442452). METHODS:Patients (n = 20) were recruited at Duke University from May 2018 to February 2019. Participants completed assessments of AML knowledge and decisional conflict, before and after using the electronic decision aid. The primary endpoint was feasibility (endpoint met if > 80% of study participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses of efficacy were conducted using paired t tests for dependent pre-/post-samples. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of feasibility was met (100% of participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses showed improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict after using the decision aid. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 11.8 (out of 18) correct items at baseline to 15.1 correct items after using the decision aid (mean difference 3.35; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict scores reduced significantly from baseline to post-test as well (mean difference - 6.5; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that our AML decision aid is a useful tool to improve the patient experience and promote shared decision-making in AML. A randomized efficacy trial is planned.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a hematologic malignancy characterized by a poor prognosis but also a paradoxical possibility of cure. This renders decision-making complex and imminent. Unfortunately, many patients with AML misestimate their prognosis and treatment risk. While decision aids can improve illness understanding and reduce decisional conflict, there are no validated decision aids for AML. We developed and tested a novel AML decision aid (NCT03442452). METHODS:Patients (n = 20) were recruited at Duke University from May 2018 to February 2019. Participants completed assessments of AML knowledge and decisional conflict, before and after using the electronic decision aid. The primary endpoint was feasibility (endpoint met if > 80% of study participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses of efficacy were conducted using paired t tests for dependent pre-/post-samples. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of feasibility was met (100% of participants completed all study components). Secondary analyses showed improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict after using the decision aid. Knowledge scores improved from a mean of 11.8 (out of 18) correct items at baseline to 15.1 correct items after using the decision aid (mean difference 3.35; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict scores reduced significantly from baseline to post-test as well (mean difference - 6.5; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that our AML decision aid is a useful tool to improve the patient experience and promote shared decision-making in AML. A randomized efficacy trial is planned.
Authors: Gary Rodin; Amy Deckert; Eryn Tong; Lisa W Le; Anne Rydall; Aaron Schimmer; Charles R Marmar; Chris Lo; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Thomas W LeBlanc; Laura J Fish; Catherine T Bloom; Areej El-Jawahri; Debra M Davis; Susan C Locke; Karen E Steinhauser; Kathryn I Pollak Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: M A Sekeres; R M Stone; D Zahrieh; D Neuberg; V Morrison; D J De Angelo; I Galinsky; S J Lee Journal: Leukemia Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Abbas H Panju; Ali Danesh; Mark D Minden; David J Kelvin; Shabbir M H Alibhai Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Areej El-Jawahri; Margaret Nelson-Lowe; Harry VanDusen; Lara Traeger; Gregory A Abel; Joseph A Greer; Amir Fathi; David P Steensma; Thomas W LeBlanc; Zhigang Li; Daniel DeAngelo; Martha Wadleigh; Gabriela Hobbs; Julia Foster; Andrew Brunner; Philip Amrein; Richard M Stone; Jennifer S Temel Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-23
Authors: Margaret H Barlet; Peter A Ubel; Kevin P Weinfurt; Hannah C Glass; Kathryn I Pollak; Debra H Brandon; Monica E Lemmon Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2022-02-26 Impact factor: 6.314
Authors: Hannah R Abrams; Ryan D Nipp; Lara Traeger; Mitchell W Lavoie; Matthew J Reynolds; Nneka N Ufere; Annie C Wang; Kofi Boateng; Thomas W LeBlanc; Areej El-Jawahri Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2022-07-26