When study site contributes to outcomes in a multi-center randomized trial: a secondary analysis of decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Underhill ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4213457 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
When study site contributes to outcomes in a multi-center randomized trial: a secondary analysis of decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer.
Underhill Meghan L ML Hong Fangxin F Berry Donna L DL
Health and quality of life outcomes 20141025
<h4>Purpose</h4>Evaluate baseline factors that may explain the influence of study site on decisional conflict (DC) in men from the Personal Patient Profile: Prostate (P3P) randomized trial.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>476 cases from 5 P3P sites were included. Participants completed baseline demographic assessments, 4 subscales of the DC scale at baseline (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, and support), the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (short form) and the State-Trait Anxiety In ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Decisional conflict is associated with decision quality and may affect decision outcomes. In the health sciences literature, the Decisional Conflict Scale is widely used to measure decisional conflict, yet limited research has described the psychometric properties of the Decisional Conflict Scale subscales and of the low literacy version of the scale. The purpose of this secondary data analysis was therefore to examine properties of the original (DCS-12) and low literacy (LL DCS-10) Decisional Conflict Scales using Classical Measurement Theory and Item Response Theory. METHODS:Data from two multi-site trials of men with prostate cancer were used to analyze the DCS-12, LL DCS-10, and an aggregated DCS-12 dataset in which five response options were aggregated into three. Internal consistency was estimated with Cronbach's alphas. Subscale correlations were evaluated with Pearson's correlation coefficient. Item difficulty, item discrimination, and test information were evaluated using Graded Response Modeling (GRM). The likelihood ratio test guided model selection. RESULTS:Cronbach's alphas for the total scales and three of four subscales were ≥ 0.85. Alphas ranged from 0.34-0.57 for the support subscales. Subscale correlations ranged from 0.42-0.71 (P < 0.001). Items on the DCS-12 exhibited the widest range of difficulty. Two items on the support subscale had low to moderate discrimination and contributed little information. Only the DCS-12 was informative across the full range of decisional conflict values. CONCLUSIONS:Lack of precision in the support subscale raises concerns about subscale validity. The DCS-12 is most capable of discriminating between respondents with high and low decisional conflict. Evaluation of interventions to reduce decisional conflict must consider the above findings.
| S-EPMC6610903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this trial was to compare usual patient education plus the Internet-based Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, vs. usual education alone, on conflict associated with decision making, plus explore time-to-treatment, and treatment choice. METHODS:A randomized, multi-center clinical trial was conducted with measures at baseline, 1-, and 6 months. Men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer (CaP) who sought consultation at urology, radiation oncology, or multi-disciplinary clinics in 4 geographically-distinct American cities were recruited. Intervention group participants used the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate, a decision support system comprised of customized text and video coaching regarding potential outcomes, influential factors, and communication with care providers. The primary outcome, patient-reported decisional conflict, was evaluated over time using generalized estimating equations to fit generalized linear models. Additional outcomes, time-to-treatment, treatment choice, and program acceptability/usefulness, were explored. RESULTS:A total of 494 eligible men were randomized (266 intervention; 228 control). The intervention reduced adjusted decisional conflict over time compared with the control group, for the uncertainty score (estimate -3.61; (confidence interval, -7.01, 0.22), and values clarity (estimate -3.57; confidence interval (-5.85,-1.30). Borderline effect was seen for the total decisional conflict score (estimate -1.75; confidence interval (-3.61,0.11). Time-to-treatment was comparable between groups, while undecided men in the intervention group chose brachytherapy more often than in the control group. Acceptability and usefulness were highly rated. CONCLUSION:The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate is the first intervention to significantly reduce decisional conflict in a multi-center trial of American men with newly diagnosed localized CaP. Our findings support efficacy of P3P for addressing decision uncertainty and facilitating patient selection of a CaP treatment that is consistent with the patient values and preferences.
| S-EPMC3349002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeA substantial proportion of men with localized prostate cancer (lPCa) later regret their treatment decision. We aimed to identify factors contributing to decisional regret.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal study, in which men with lPCa were surveyed at four measurement points: T0 (baseline) = prior to treatment; T1 = 6; T2 = 12; T3 = 18 months after baseline. χ2-tests and independent t-tests were used to compare men undergoing different treatments [Active Surveillance (AS) vs. local treatment]. Logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the associations between predictors (time pressure, information provided by the urologist, impairment of erectile functioning, satisfaction with sexual life) and the criterion decisional regret.ResultsAt baseline, the sample included N = 176 men (AS: n = 100; local treatment: n = 76). At T2 and T3, men after local therapies reported higher regret than men under AS. Decisional regret at T3 was predicted by time pressure at baseline (OR 2.28; CI 1.04-4.99; p < 0.05), erectile dysfunction at T2 and T3 (OR 3.40; CI 1.56-7.42; p < 0.01), and satisfaction with sexual life at T1-T3 (OR 0.44; CI 0.20-0.96; p < 0.05).ConclusionsTime pressure, erectile dysfunction, and satisfaction with sexual life predict decisional regret in men with lPCa. Mitigating time pressure and realistic expectations concerning treatment side effects may help to prevent decisional regret in PCa survivors.Trial registration numberDRKS00009510; date of registration: 2015/10/28.
| S-EPMC8519821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMen diagnosed with localized prostate cancer must navigate a highly preference-sensitive decision between treatment options with varying adverse outcome profiles. We evaluated whether use of a decision support tool previously shown to decrease decisional conflict also impacted the secondary outcome of post-treatment decision regret.MethodsParticipants were randomized to receive personalized decision support via the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate or usual care prior to a final treatment decision. Symptoms were measured just before randomization and 6 months later; decision regret was measured at 6 months along with records review to ascertain treatment choices. Regression modeling explored associations between baseline variables including race and D`Amico risk, study group, and 6-month variables regret, choice, and symptoms.ResultsAt 6 months, 287 of 392 (73%) men returned questionnaires of which 257 (89%) had made a treatment choice. Of that group, 201 of 257 (78%) completely answered the regret scale. Regret was not significantly different between participants randomized to the P3P intervention compared to the control group (P = 0.360). In univariate analyses, we found that Black men, men with hormonal symptoms, and men with bowel symptoms reported significantly higher decision regret (all P < 0.01). Significant interactions were detected between race and study group (intervention vs. usual care) in the multivariable model; use of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate was associated with significantly decreased decisional regret among Black men (P = 0.037). Interactions between regret, symptoms and treatment revealed that (1) men choosing definitive treatment and reporting no hormonal symptoms reported lower regret compared to all others; and (2) men choosing active surveillance and reporting bowel symptoms had higher regret compared to all others.ConclusionThe Personal Patient Profile-Prostate decision support tool may be most beneficial in minimizing decisional regret for Black men considering treatment options for newly-diagnosed prostate cancer.Trial registrationNCT01844999.
| S-EPMC8213859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent surgical and ablative treatment options for prostate cancer (PCa) may result in a high incidence of (temporary) incontinence, erectile dysfunction and/or bowel damage. These side effects are due to procedure related effects on adjacent structures including blood vessels, bowel, urethra and/or neurovascular bundle. Ablation with irreversible electroporation (IRE) has shown to be effective and safe in destroying PCa cells and also has the potential advantage of sparing surrounding tissue and vital structures, resulting in less impaired functional outcomes and maintaining men's quality of life.Methods/designIn this randomized controlled trial (RCT) on IRE in localized PCa, 200 patients with organ-confined, unilateral (T1c-T2b) low- to intermediate-risk PCa (Gleason sum score 6 and 7) on transperineal template-mapping biopsies (TTMB) will be included. Patients will be randomized into focal or extended ablation of cancer foci with IRE. Oncological efficacy will be determined by multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound imaging if available, TTMP and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) follow-up. Patients will be evaluated up to 5 years on functional outcomes and quality of life with the use of standardized questionnaires.DiscussionThere is critical need of larger, standardized RCTs evaluating long-term oncological and functional outcomes before introducing IRE and other focal therapy modalities as an accepted and safe therapeutic option for PCa. This RCT will provide important short- and long-term data and elucidates the differences between focal or extended ablation of localized, unilateral low- to intermediate-risk PCa with IRE.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT01835977. The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL50791.018.14.
| S-EPMC4858903 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Initiating disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) is a major decision for people with (pw)MS but little is known about how the decision is perceived by the individual. Objectives:The aim of the study was to determine if decisional conflict (DC) and decisional regret reflect different stages of the decision-making process when initiating DMTs. Methods:This was a cross-sectional study of three cohorts of pwMS (n = 254), a 'MS conference attendees', 'on treatment' and an 'offered treatment' cohort. Questionnaires assessing DC, decisional regret and control preference were performed. Results:Forty-four per cent (113/254) of pwMS were dissatisfied with their treatment status and 53% (135/254) had DC. DC (p = 0.013) and decisional regret (p = 0.027) increase in treatment-naïve pwMS and also in those 'offered treatment' dissatisfied with their treatment status (p < 0.0001), whilst those 'on treatment' have low Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) score (p = 0.0005). DC and DRS were only correlated with treatment status in those on treatment and not in treatment-naïve patients. F (58/135) pwMS satisfied with treatment had DC. DC (n = 236, adjusted R 2 0.137, p = 0.000) and DRS (n = 235, adjusted R 2 0.232, p = 0.000) were increased by dissatisfaction with treatment, lower potency treatment, being from the 'MS conference attendees' cohort and reliance on the doctor's decision, with DC additionally associated with being employed. Conclusions:DC and decisional regret vary in populations at different stages of initiating DMTs and are impacted by non-treatment issues.
| S-EPMC6393834 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The study's goals were to characterize decisional conflict and preparedness for making the decision about having CPM among breast cancer patients considering CPM who do not carry cancer-predisposing mutation and to evaluate correlates of decisional conflict and preparedness. METHODS:93 women considering CPM completed a survey of decisional conflict and preparedness for the CPM decision, knowledge, perceived risk, self-efficacy, reasons for CPM, input from others and discussion with the doctor about CPM, and cancer worry. RESULTS:Between 8% and 27% of women endorsed elevated decisional conflict. Most women were satisfied with preparatory information that they were provided. Knowledge was low. Top reasons for choosing CPM were the desire for peace of mind, lowering the chance of another breast cancer, and improving survival. CONCLUSIONS:Decisional conflict is elevated in a subset of patients considering CPM. A more well-informed decision may be fostered by a comprehensive discussion about CPM with the patient's clinician, fostering self-efficacy in managing cancer worry, and helping patients understand their motivations for CPM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:Clinicians working with breast cancer patients considering CPM should discuss the CPM decision, foster self-efficacy in managing cancer worry, and help patients understand their motivations for the surgery.
| S-EPMC7666877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer (BC) patients who are treated with mastectomy are frequently offered immediate breast reconstruction. This study aimed to assess decisional conflict in patients considering immediate breast reconstruction, and to identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict (CSDC).MethodsBaseline data of a multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of an online decision aid for BC patients considering immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy were analyzed. Participants completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, decisional conflict and other patient-reported outcomes related to decision-making such as breast reconstruction preference, knowledge, information resources used, preferred involvement in decision-making, information coping style, and anxiety. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with CSDC (score > 37.5 on decisional conflict).ResultsOf the 250 participants, 68% experienced CSDC. Patients with a slight preference for breast reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) = 6.19, p < .01), with no preference for or against breast reconstruction (OR = 11.84, p < .01), and with a strong preference for no breast reconstruction (OR = 5.20, p < .05) were more likely to experience CSDC than patients with a strong preference for breast reconstruction. Furthermore, patients with more anxiety were more likely to experience CSDC (OR = 1.03, p = .01).ConclusionA majority of BC patients who consider immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy experience clinically significant decisional conflict. The findings emphasize the need for decision support, especially for patients who do not have a strong preference for breast reconstruction.
| S-EPMC7779862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main measuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key resultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.
| S-EPMC7431116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often have poor glycemic control on first-line pharmacologic therapy and require treatment intensification. Intensification decisions can be difficult because of many available options and their many benefits and risks. The American Diabetes Association recommends patient-centered, evidence-based tools supporting shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. We developed a patient decision aid (PDA) targeting decisions about treatment intensification for T2DM. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of this PDA for patients with T2DM on metformin who require treatment intensification.MethodsThis study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in 27 US primary care and endocrinology clinics. Subjects were English-speaking adults with T2DM receiving metformin with persistent hyperglycemia who were recommended to consider medication intensification. Subjects were randomized to receive either the PDA or usual care (UC). Main outcome measures were change in knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict.ResultsOf 225 subjects enrolled, 114 were randomized to the PDA and 111 to UC. Mean [SD] age was 52 [1] years, time since T2DM diagnosis was 6 [+/-6] years, 45.3% were male, and most (55.5%) were non-Caucasian. Compared to UC, PDA users had significantly larger knowledge gains (35.0% [22.3] vs 9.9% [22.2]; P < 0.0001) and larger improvements in self-efficacy (3.7 [16.7] vs-3.9 [19.2]; P < 0.0001) and decisional conflict (-22.2 [20.6] vs-7.5 [16.6]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe PDA resulted in substantial and significant improvements in knowledge, decisional conflict and decisional self-efficacy. Decisional conflict scores after PDA use were within the range that correlates with effective decision-making. This PDA has the potential to facilitate shared-decision-making for patients with T2DM.Trial registrationNCT02110979.
| S-EPMC4712511 | biostudies-literature