A web-based decision aid for shared decision making in pelvic organ prolapse: the SHADE-POP trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Among women worldwide, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common problem. There are three different treatment options for POP: pelvic floor muscle therapy, pessary treatment and prolapse surgery. As none of the three treatment options is clearly superior, shared decision making (SDM) is very important. A decision aid (DA) is known to facilitate patient participation and SDM. We hypothesise that the use of a web-based DA for POP increases patients' satisfaction with information and care and reduces decisional conflict. METHODS: This two-arm, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial was performed in women with POP in five different Dutch hospitals. The control group received usual care (UC) and the intervention group received the DA in addition to UC. Primary outcome measures were satisfaction with treatment decision making and satisfaction with information. Analyses were performed using independent sample t tests, Chi-squared tests, and multilevel linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Between the DA group (n=40) and the UC group (n=56) no differences were found concerning patients' satisfaction with information, with scores of 45.63 and 46.14 out of 50 respectively (p=0.67). Also, no differences were found concerning the perceived role in decision making, as patients scored 46.83 in the DA group and 46.41 in the UC group, out of a maximum of 54 (n=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found concerning patients' satisfaction with information and treatment decision making between the DA and UC. However, both groups scored high on the questionnaires, which suggests that the decision process is already of high quality.

Differences in treatment choices between prostate cancer patients using a decision aid and patients receiving care as usual: results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not decision aid (DA) use influences treatment decisions in patients with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer (PC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a cluster randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized to either DA use (DA group) or no DA use (control group). Between 2014 and 2016, newly diagnosed patients with low or intermediate risk PC were recruited in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands. DA users had access to a web-based DA that provided general PC information, PC-treatment information, and values clarification exercises to elicit personal preferences towards the treatment options. Control group patients received care as usual. Differences in treatment choice were analysed using multilevel logistic regressions. Differences in eligible treatment options between groups were compared using Pearson Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Informed consent was given by 382 patients (DA group N = 273, control group N = 109). Questionnaire response rate was 88% (N = 336). Active surveillance (AS) was an option for 38%, radical prostatectomy (RP) for 98%, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for 88%, and brachytherapy (BT) for 79% of patients. DA users received AS significantly more often than control group. Patients (29 vs 16%, p = 0.01), whereas the latter more often chose BT (29 vs 18%, p < 0.01). No differences were found between groups regarding RP and EBRT. DA users who were not eligible for AS, received surgery more often compared to the control group (53 vs 35%, p = 0.01). Patient and disease characteristics were evenly distributed between groups. CONCLUSION: DA-using PC patients chose the AS treatment option more often than non-DA-using patients did.

Treatment Preferences of Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Before and After Using a Web-based Decision Aid.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment preferences of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) before and after using a web-based decision aid (DA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2016 and January 2017 patients were invited to use a web-based LUTS/BPH DA. Treatment preferences (for lifestyle advices, medication or surgery) before and after DA use and responses on values clarification exercises were extracted from the DA. RESULTS: In total, 126 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-four percent (43/126) had not received any previous treatment and were eligible for (continuation of) lifestyle advices or to start medication, as initial treatment. The other 66% (83/126) did use medication and were eligible, either for continuing medication or to undergo surgery. Before being exposed to the DA, 67 patients (53%) were undecided and 59 patients (47%) indicated an initial treatment preference. Half of the patients who were initially undecided were able to indicate a preference after DA use (34/67, 51%). Of those with an initial preference, 80% (47/59) confirmed their initial preference after DA use. Five out of 7 values clarification exercises used in the DA were discriminative between final treatment preferences. In 79%, the treatment preferred after DA use matched the received treatment. Overall, healthcare providers were positive about DA feasibility. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a LUTS/BPH DA may help patients to confirm their initial treatment preference and support them in forming a treatment preference if they did not have an initial preference.

Introducing Decision Aids into Routine Prostate Cancer Care in The Netherlands: Implementation and Patient Evaluations from the Multi-regional JIPPA Initiative.

Uptake of decision aids (DAs) in daily routine is low, resulting in limited knowledge about successful DA implementation at a large scale. We assessed implementation rates after multi-regional implementation of three different prostate cancer (PCa) treatment DAs and patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to use a DA. Thirty-three hospitals implemented one out of the three DAs in routine care. Implementation rates for each DA were calculated per hospital. After deciding about PCa treatment, patients (n = 1033) completed a survey on pre-formulated barriers and facilitators to use a DA. Overall DA implementation was 40%. For each DA alike, implementation within hospitals varied from incidental (< 10% of eligible patients receiving a DA) to high rates of implementation (> 80%). All three DAs were evaluated positively by patients, although concise and paper DAs yielded higher satisfaction scores compared with an elaborate online DA. Patients were most satisfied when they received the DA within a week after diagnosis. Pre-formulated barriers to DA usage were experienced by less than 10% of the patients, and most patients confirmed the facilitators. Many patients received a DA during treatment counseling, although a wide variation in uptake across hospitals was observed for each DA. Most patients were satisfied with the DA they received. Sustained implementation of DAs in clinical routine requires further encouragement and attention.

Longitudinal regret and information satisfaction after deciding on treatment for localized prostate cancer with or without a decision aid. Results at one-year follow-up in the PCPCC trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of including an online decision aid (DA) during prostate cancer treatment counseling on decisional regret and information satisfaction in a one-year follow-up. METHODS: Within a cluster RCT, 18 Dutch hospitals were randomized to DA counseling or care-as-usual, patients (n = 382) initially completed questionnaires directly after treatment decision making. Six and twelve months later regret (Decisional Regret Scale) and information satisfaction (SCIP-B) were assessed. Anxious and depressive symptoms (HADS) was included as possible covariate. RESULTS: After 12 months, 43 participants (15%) regretted their treatment choice and 105 participants (36%) were dissatisfied with the information that was received at the time of decision-making, regardless of being exposed to the DA. Anxious and depressive symptoms at follow-up were associated with regret and information dissatisfaction. CONCLUSION: No long-term benefical effects emerged from DA usage compared to patients who underwent standard counseling. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: During PCa treatment counseling, healthcare providers should be aware of anxious and depressive symptoms.

Effectiveness of a web-based treatment decision aid for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based decision aid (DA), with values clarification exercises compared with usual care, for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2016 and January 2017, all new patients with LUTS/BPH who consulted the urologist were invited to use the DA and participate in this prospective questionnaire study. Patients who consulted the urologist between December 2015 and February 2016 served as controls. The DA was designed to support patients in making a well-informed treatment decision, corresponding with their personal preferences and values. Well-informed decision was measured by using a knowledge questionnaire. Value congruent decision was measured by the correspondence between responses on nine value statements and chosen treatment. The primary outcome, decision quality, was defined as the combination of well-informed decision and value congruent decision. Secondary outcomes were decisional conflict, involvement and received role in shared decision-making, decisional regret, and treatment choice. RESULTS: A total of 109 DA-users and 108 controls were included. DA-users were younger (68.4 vs 71.5 years; P = 0.003) and their education level was higher (P = 0.047) compared with the controls. Patients who used the DA made a well-informed and value congruent decision more often than the control group (43% vs 21%; P = 0.028). DA-users had less decisional conflict (score 33.2 vs 46.6; P = 0.003), experienced a less passive role in decision-making (22% vs 41%; P = 0.038), and reported less process regret (score 2.4 vs 2.8; P = 0.034). Furthermore, DA-users who had not used prior medication chose lifestyle advices more often than the control group (43% vs 11%; P = 0.002). Outcomes were adjusted for significantly different baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: The LUTS/BPH DA seems to improve the decision quality by supporting patients in making more well-informed and value congruent treatment decisions. Therefore, further implementation of this DA into routine care is suggested.

Impact of a web-based prostate cancer treatment decision aid on patient-reported decision process parameters: results from the Prostate Cancer Patient Centered Care trial.

PURPOSE: To compare patients' evaluation of the treatment decision-making process in localized prostate cancer between counseling that included an online decision aid (DA) and standard counseling. METHODS: Eighteen Dutch hospitals were randomized to DA counseling (n = 235) or the control group with standard counseling (n = 101) in a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The DA was provided to patients at, or soon after diagnosis. Decisional conflict, involvement, knowledge, and satisfaction with information were assessed with a questionnaire after treatment decision-making. Anxiety and depression served as covariates. RESULTS: The levels of decision involvement and conflict were comparable between patients in both groups. Patients with a DA felt more knowledgeable but scored equally well on a knowledge test as patients without a DA. Small significant negative effects were found on satisfaction with information and preparation for decision-making. A preference for print over online and depression and anxiety symptoms was negatively associated with satisfaction and conflict scores in the DA group. DISCUSSION: The DA aimed to support shared decision-making, while outcomes for a majority of DA users were comparable to patients who received standard counseling. Patients, who are less comfortable with the online DA format or experience anxiety or depression symptoms, could require more guidance toward shared decision-making. To evaluate long-term DA effects, follow-up evaluation on treatment satisfaction and decisional regret will be done.

The impact of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment decision-making on health-related quality of life before treatment onset.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to test if patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) declines after prostate biopsy to detect Pca, and after subsequent treatment decision-making in case Pca is confirmed, and to test whether personality state and traits are associated with these potential changes in HRQoL. METHODS: Patients who were scheduled for prostate biopsy to detect Pca (N = 377) filled out a baseline questionnaire about HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR25), "big five" personality traits (BFI-10), optimism (LOT-r), and self-efficacy (Decision Self-efficacy Scale) (t0). Patients with confirmed Pca (N = 126) filled out a follow-up questionnaire on HRQoL within 2 weeks after treatment was chosen but had not yet started (t1). RESULTS: HRQoL declined between t0 and t1, reflected in impaired role and cognitive functioning, and elevated fatigue, constipation, and prostate-specific symptoms. Sexual activity and functioning improved. Baseline HRQoL scores were unrelated to the selection of a particular treatment, but for patients who chose a curative treatment, post-decision HRQoL showed a greater decline compared to patients who chose active surveillance. Optimism was associated with HRQoL at baseline; decisional self-efficacy was positively associated with HRQoL at follow-up. No associations between HRQoL and the "big five" personality traits were found. CONCLUSION: Patients who have undergone prostate biopsy and treatment decision-making for Pca experience a decline in HRQoL. Choosing treatment with a curative intent was associated with greater decline in HRQoL. Interventions aimed at optimism and decision self-efficacy could be helpful to reduce HRQoL impairment around the time of prostate biopsy and treatment decision-making.

How do patients choose between active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy? The effect of a preference-sensitive decision aid on treatment decision making for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of a decision aid (DA) on treatment preferences and to investigate which patient preferences are important for final treatment preferences. We also determined if the patient׳s treatment decision was influenced by the urologist׳s treatment preference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between August 2014 and July 2015, newly diagnosed patients with low-/intermediate-risk prostate cancer were offered to use a web-based DA after diagnosis. Treatment preferences and patient׳s values were extracted from the DA. Urologists׳ treatment preferences were indicated at the time of inclusion. RESULTS: We included 181 patients, of whom 21% preferred active surveillance, 33% radical prostatectomy, 10% brachytherapy, 3% external beam radiotherapy, and 34% did not indicate a specific preferred treatment option after DA use (missing N = 6). Among 67%, treatment preference before DA use did not change after DA use. In men who chose active surveillance after DA use, 97% (37/38) preferred to postpone unnecessary treatment. For radical prostatectomy, 91% (52/57) of the patients valued tumor removal, and for brachytherapy, 88% (15/17) valued incontinence worse than bowel complaints. For 64% (missing N = 21) of the patients, urologists indicated one specific preferred treatment option as most suitable for the patient concerned. Agreement between final treatment decision and urologist׳s preference was lower (κ = 0.68) than between final treatment decision and preferred treatment after DA use (κ = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Most patients with prostate cancer chose the treatment in accordance with the post-DA preference and to a lesser extent the urologists preference; implications of this are prospectively investigated in an ongoing study.

Prostate cancer survivors with a passive role preference in treatment decision-making are less satisfied with information received: Results from the PROFILES registry.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate decision-making role preferences and their association with the evaluation of information received in a sample of low-risk and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (Pca) survivors. METHODS: Cross-sectional study involved 562 men diagnosed with low-risk or intermediate-risk Pca (median time since diagnosis, 48mo), measuring preferred decision-making role (Control Preference Scale) and the evaluation of information received (EORTC QLQ-INFO25). Analyses were performed using analysis of variance, chi-square tests, and multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: Men who preferred a passive role were older and less educated than other preference groups and more often selected a noninvasive treatment option (all with P<0.001). The passive role preference group reported having received less information, judged the received information as less helpful, and indicated lower overall satisfaction with information received (all with P<0.05). Role preference groups did not differ in their desire to receive more information. CONCLUSION: Compared with nonpassive preference groups, the preference for a passive role in Pca treatment decision-making is associated with less satisfaction with the information received. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Assessment of role preferences and tailored information provision could improve satisfaction with information received and perhaps may ultimately lead to improved patient participation in treatment decision-making.

Development of a decision aid for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A four stage method using a Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a web-based decision aid (DA) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH). METHODS: From February-September 2014 we performed a four-stage development method: 1: Two-round Delphi consensus method among urologists, 2: Identifying patients' needs and expectations, 3: Development of DA content and structure, 4: Usability testing with LUTS/BPH patients. RESULTS: 1 (N=15): Dutch urologists reached consensus on 61% of the statements concerning users' criteria, decision options, structure, and medical content. 2 (N=24): Consensus was reached in 69% on statements concerning the need for improvement of information provision, the need for DA development and that the DA should clarify patients' preferences. 3: DA development based on results from stage 1 and stage 2. 4 (N=10): Pros of the DA were clear information provision, systematic design and easy to read and re-read. CONCLUSION: A LUTS/BPH DA containing VCEs(**) was developed in cooperation with urologists and patients following a structured 4 stage method and was stated to be well accepted. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This method can be adopted for the development of DAs to support other medical decision issues.

Patients are dissatisfied with information provision: perceived information provision and quality of life in prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the satisfaction with information received by prostate cancer survivors and associations with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and illness perception. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed among 999 patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2009. All patients received a questionnaire on HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), illness perception (B-IPQ) and satisfaction with information provision (EORTC QLQ-INFO-25). Multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess the association between satisfaction with information provision and HRQoL as well as illness perception. RESULTS: Response rate was 70% (N = 697), 34% (N = 222) indicated to be dissatisfied with the information received. Multivariate linear regression analyses showed a significant positive association between satisfaction with information provision and global health (P = <0.001), emotional functioning (P = 0.004), social functioning (P = 0.027), physical functioning (P = 0.002) and role functioning (P = 0.001). Satisfaction was negatively associated with illness perception subscales on consequences (P = 0.020), timeline (P = 0.031), personal control (P = 0.013), treatment control (P < 0.001), illness concern (P < 0.001), coherence (P = 0.001) and emotional representation (P = 0.004). Hence, more satisfied patients reported fewer consequences of disease, illness concern and emotional representation, but higher personal and treatment control and coherence. CONCLUSIONS: A third of all prostate cancer survivors reported to be dissatisfied with the information received and scored worse on HRQoL and illness perception. A prospective randomized study is needed to study the effect of an intervention that improves information provision on HRQoL and illness perception outcomes. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Impact of a web-based treatment decision aid for early-stage prostate cancer on shared decision-making and health outcomes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: At an early stage, prostate cancer patients are often eligible for more than one treatment option, or may choose to defer curative treatment. Without a pre-existing superior option, a patient has to weigh his personal preferences against the risks and benefits of each alternative to select the most appropriate treatment. Given this context, in prostate cancer treatment decision-making, it is particularly suitable to follow the principles of shared decision-making (SDM), especially with the support of specific instruments like decision aids (DAs). Although several alternatives are available, present tools are not sufficiently compatible with routine clinical practice. To overcome existing barriers and to stimulate structural implementation of DAs and SDM in clinical practice, a web-based prostate cancer treatment DA was developed to fit clinical workflow. Following the structure of an existing DA, Dutch content was developed, and values clarification methods (VCMs) were added. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of this DA on (shared) treatment choice and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: Nineteen Dutch hospitals are included in a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial, with an intervention and a control arm. In the intervention group, the DA will be offered after diagnosis, and a summary of the patients' preferences, which were identified with the DA, can be discussed by the patient and his clinician during later consultation. Patients in the control group will receive information and decisional support as usual. Results from both groups on decisional conflict, treatment choice and the experience with involvement in the decision-making process are compared. Patients are requested to fill in questionnaires after treatment decision-making but before treatment is started, and 6 and 12 months later. This will allow the development of treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and quality of life to be monitored. Clinicians from both groups will evaluate their practice of information provision and decisional support. DISCUSSION: This study will describe a web-based prostate cancer treatment DA with VCMs. The effect of this DA on the decision-making process and subsequent patient reported outcomes will be evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR4554, registration date 1 May 2014.