Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions.

Decisions around prostate-specific antigen screening require a patient-centred approach, considering the benefits and risks of potential harm. Using shared decision-making (SDM) can improve men's knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. SDM is supported by evidence, but can be difficult to implement in clinical settings. An inclusive definition of SDM was used in order to determine the prevalence of SDM in prostate cancer screening decisions. Despite consensus among guidelines endorsing SDM practice, the prevalence of SDM occurring before the decision to undergo or forgo prostate-specific antigen testing varied between 11% and 98%, and was higher in studies in which SDM was self-reported by physicians than in patient-reported recollections and observed practices. The influence of trust and continuity in physician-patient relationships were identified as facilitators of SDM, whereas common barriers included limited appointment times and poor health literacy. Decision aids, which can help physicians to convey health information within a limited time frame and give patients increased autonomy over decisions, are underused and were not shown to clearly influence whether SDM occurs. Future studies should focus on methods to facilitate the use of SDM in clinical settings.

Pain as bad as you can imagine or extremely severe pain? A randomized controlled trial comparing two pain scale anchors.

BACKGROUND: A common method of pain assessment is the numerical rating scale, where patients are asked to rate their pain on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "no pain" and 10 is "pain as bad as you can imagine". We hypothesize such language is suboptimal as it involves a test of a cognitive skill, imagination, in the assessment of symptom severity. METHODS: We used a large-scale online research registry, ResearchMatch, to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the distributions of pain scores of two different pain scale anchors. We recruited adults located in the United States who reported a chronic pain problem (> 3 months) and were currently in pain. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain assessment based on a modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), where the anchor for a score of 10 was either "extremely severe pain", or the original BPI, with the anchor "pain as bad as you can imagine". Participants in both groups also answered additional questions about pain, other symptomatology and creativity. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 405 participants for the modified and 424 for the original BPI. Distribution of responses to pain questions were similar between groups (all p-values ≥ 0.12). We did not see evidence that the relationship between pain score and the anchor text differed based on self-perceived creativity (all interaction p-values ≥ 0.2). However, in the key analysis, correlations between current pain assessments and known correlates (fatigue, anxiety, depression, current pain compared to a typical day, pain compared to other people) were stronger for "extreme" vs. "imaginable" anchor text (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Pain rating scales should utilize the modified anchor text "extremely severe pain" instead of "pain as bad as you can imagine". Further research should explore the effects of anchors for other symptoms.

A randomized comparison of two-stage versus traditional one-stage consent for a low-stakes randomized trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It has been proposed that informed consent for randomized trials should be split into two stages, with the purported advantage of decreased information overload and patient anxiety. We compared patient understanding, anxiety and decisional quality between two-stage and traditional one-stage consent. METHODS: We approached patients at an academic cancer center for a low-stakes trial of a mind-body intervention for procedural distress during prostate biopsy. Patients were randomized to hear about the trial by either one- or two-stage consent (n = 66 vs n = 59). Patient-reported outcomes included Quality of Informed Consent (0-100); general and consent-specific anxiety and decisional conflict, burden, and regret. RESULTS: Quality of Informed Consent scores were non-significantly superior for two-stage consent, by 0.9 points (95% confidence interval = -2.3, 4.2, p = 0.6) for objective and 1.1 points (95% CI = -4.8, 7.0, p = 0.7) for subjective understanding. Differences between groups for anxiety and decisional outcomes were similarly small. In a post hoc analysis, consent-related anxiety was lower among two-stage control patients, likely because scores were measured close to the time of biopsy in the two-stage patients receiving the experimental intervention. CONCLUSION: Two-stage consent maintains patient understanding of randomized trials, with some evidence of lowered patient anxiety. Further research is warranted on two-stage consent in higher-stakes settings.

Suggestions for modifications to the Female Sexual Function Index based on cognitive interviews with sexual and gender minority individuals and cisgender, heterosexual persons.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures for sexual health were often designed for research studies that included only heterosexual, partnered, and cisgender participants; as such, they may have limited applicability for clinical use among sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals or those without a partner. AIM: We aimed to conduct cognitive interviews with SGM persons and heterosexual women to determine the readability, comprehension, and applicability of questionnaire items to assess sexual function among diverse sexual and gender identities. METHODS: We conducted 4 rounds of cognitive interviews with 52 participants (28 SGM; 24 cisgender, heterosexual) who provided feedback on the comprehension and wording of questionnaire items and response scales. We used items from the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and focused on establishing content validity of a modified measure. Participants made recommendations for changes to the questionnaire, which was iteratively revised between interview rounds. Two independent coders analyzed the transcripts using structural coding based on 5 predefined codes: satisfaction with item, specificity/language change needed, missing/suggested item, patient definitions of concepts, and confusion with item. OUTCOMES: Content validity. RESULTS: After 3 rounds of cognitive interviews and revisions to the questionnaire, participants found the final version acceptable and understandable, thereby reaching thematic saturation and establishing content validity of the modified FSFI. Modifications included the following: replacing all instances of "sexual stimulation" and "intercourse" with "sexual activity (alone or with a partner)," broadening the definition of "vaginal penetration" beyond penile-vaginal penetration, and adding skip logic to include the option "no sexual activity." Participants identified missing concepts important to their sexual health, such as use of an external lubricant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The FSFI and similar questionnaires need to be adapted to broader clinical practice populations such that all persons' experiences are accurately reflected and assessed, ensuring that sexual health needs can be met more inclusively. STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS: A strength of the study was using cognitive interviews engaging patient perspectives, which is considered the gold standard for establishing content validity. One limitation is that participants included predominantly White and highly educated women. CONCLUSION: Feedback from interviews supports modifying FSFI items and further psychometric testing, and future studies should evaluate the measure among racially and educationally diverse groups.

Patient Perceptions of a Decision Support Tool for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose. To evaluate patient perceptions of a Web-based decision aid for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods. We assessed patient perceptions of a multicomponent, Web-based decision aid with a preference elicitation/values clarification exercise using adaptive conjoint analysis, the generation of a summary report, and provision of information about localized prostate cancer treatment options. Using a think-aloud approach, we conducted 21 cognitive interviews with prostate cancer patients presented with the decision aid prior to seeing their urologist. Thematic content analysis was used to examine patient perceptions of the tool's components and content prior to engaging in shared decision making with their clinician. Results. Five themes were identified: 1) patients had some negative emotional reactions to the tool, pointing out what they perceived to be unnecessarily negative framing and language used; 2) patients were forced to stop and think about preferences while going through the tool and found this deliberation to be useful; 3) patients were confused by the tool; 4) patients tried to discern the intent of the conjoint analysis questions; and 5) there was a disconnect between patients' negative reactions while using the tool and a contrasting general satisfaction with the final "values profile" created by the tool. Conclusions. Studies are needed to explore the disconnect between patients' expressing negative reactions while going through some components of decision aids but satisfaction with the final output. In particular, we hypothesize that this effect might be explained by cognitive biases such as choice-supportive bias, hindsight bias, and the "IKEA effect." This is one of the first projects to elicit patient reactions while they were completing a decision aid, and we recommend further similar, qualitative postprocess evaluation studies. Highlights: We explored perceptions of a decision aid with education about localized prostate cancer treatment and preference elicitation using adaptive conjoint analysis.Patients found the tool useful but were also confused by it, tried to discern the intent of the questions, and expressed negative emotional reactions.In particular, there was a disconnect between patients' negative reactions while using the tool and general satisfaction with the final values profile generated by the tool, which is an area for future research.

Sexual and Gender Minority Persons' Perception of the Female Sexual Function Index.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome instruments to assess sexual functioning typically assume that patients are heterosexual and have a single sexual partner, thus they may have limited applicability for sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations as well as for nonpartnered individuals or those with multiple partners. AIM: To explore the perceptions of SGM persons regarding the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a commonly used sexual functioning questionnaire. METHODS: We conducted 2 rounds of cognitive interviews with 27 SGM persons with and without a cancer diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis to identify major themes. OUTCOMES: Themes identified via qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Cognitive debriefing with the participants provided critical insights about the way we ask questions about sexual functioning in the oncology clinic. Three overarching themes arose from the data: (i) Certain aspects of the questionnaire were felt to unnecessarily medicalize sexuality; (ii) FSFI domains were perceived to represent a narrow and heteronormative experience of sexuality focused on penile-vaginal intercourse; (iii) Questionnaire domains emphasizing sexual "performance" were perceived as male-oriented. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Questionnaires such as the FSFI that were developed in research studies with specific eligibility criteria need to be adapted to the broader population seen in clinical practice. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of the study include purposive sampling of SGM persons through LGBTQ networks. Our sample included individuals of different sexual orientations, gender identities, marital status, and cancer histories. However, a limitation is that the the majority of the sample was white and college-educated. Other limitations of the study include the potential sampling bias of self-selected participants with a particular interest in the study questions. CONCLUSION: The findings provide important evidence for the development of a more inclusive sexual function measure, moving away from the traditional heteronormative, cisnormative approach to measuring sexual function. Austria MD, Lynch K, Le T, et al. Sexual and Gender Minority Persons' Perception of the Female Sexual Function Index. J Sex Med 2021;18:2020-2027.