Dataset Information

Communicating the External Beam Radiation Experience (CEBRE): Perceived Benefits of a Graphic Narrative Patient Education Tool.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Current radiation oncology patient education materials exceed national readability recommendations. A graphic narrative educational tool, the Communicating the External Beam Radiation Experience (CEBRE) discussion guide, was developed to facilitate patient-provider communication. A pilot study evaluated perceived benefits of CEBRE for patients and physicians.

Methods and materials

CEBRE was designed through a collaboration between physicians and designers. Designers interviewed patients, family members, and the clinical team. Interviews were coded for themes, leading to the design principles that drove the design of CEBRE, including a graphic narrative component. CEBRE explains the radiation therapy care path. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid test. Patients receiving radiation therapy or in follow-up and practicing radiation oncologists reviewed CEBRE and completed independent surveys. Each survey included modified versions of the Systems Usability Score (SUS) and Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) short form, along with questions unique to CEBRE. Likert-type scores are reported as median (interquartile range).

Results

CEBRE scores at a 5.4 Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Thirty-four patients and 15 radiation oncologists completed surveys. Patients had completed a high school/general equivalency degree (18%), a 2-year degree or some college (50%), or at least 4 years of college (32%). Patient and physician responses were concordant. On a scale of 1 to 5 for modified SUS and 1 to 4 for modified STAI ("strongly disagree" to "strongly agree") the SUS scores were 4 (4-5) and 4 (4-5) and STAI scores were 3 (3-4) and 3 (3-3.5) for patients and providers, respectively. This indicates CEBRE is usable and would decrease anxiety. Compared with text, the graphic narrative component of CEBRE was rated as "quite helpful" (4 [4-5]).

Conclusions

CEBRE, a graphic narrative education tool developed through a novel collaboration between designers and radiation therapy stakeholders, is accessible for patients and practical to facilitate patient-provider discussion. Perceived benefits demonstrating high usability and the potential to decrease patient anxiety warrant further prospective investigation of CEBRE in the clinical setting.

SUBMITTER: Arya R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7064379 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeBeam angle optimization is a critical issue for modern radiotherapy (RT) and is a challenging task, especially for large body sizes and noncoplanar designs. Noncoplanar RT techniques may have dosimetric advantages but increase the risk of mechanical collision. We propose a software solution to accurately predict colliding/noncolliding configurations for coplanar and noncoplanar beams.Materials and methodsIndividualized software models for two different linear accelerators were built to simulate noncolliding gantry orientations for phantom/patient subjects. The sizes and shapes of the accelerators were delineated based on their manuals and on-site measurements. The external surfaces of the subjects were automatically contoured based on computed tomography (CT) simulations. An Alderson Radiation Therapy phantom was used to predict the accuracy of spatial collision prediction by the software. A gantry collision problem encountered by one patient during initial setup was also used to test the validity of the software. Results: In the comparison between the software estimates and on-site measurements, the noncoplanar collision angles were all predicted within a 5-degree difference in gantry position. The confusion matrix was calculated for each of the two empty accelerator models, and the accuracies were 98.7% and 97.3%. The true positive rates were 97.7% and 96.9%, while the true negative rates were 99.8% and 97.9%, respectively. For the phantom study, the collision angles were predicted within a 5-degree difference. The software successfully predicted the collision problem encountered by the breast cancer patient in the initial setup position and generated shifted coordinates that were validated to correspond to a noncolliding geometry.ConclusionThe developed software effectively and accurately predicted collisions for accelerator-only, phantom, and patient setups. This software may help prevent collisions and expand the range of spatially applicable beam angles.

Project description:PurposeTo compare patient-reported disease-specific functional outcomes after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT combined with low-dose-rate brachytherapy prostate boost (EB-LDR) among men with localized prostate cancer.Methods and materialsThe prospective, population-based Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Surgery and Radiation study enrolled men with localized prostate cancer in 2011 to 2012. The 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite measured patient-reported disease-specific function at baseline and at 6, 12, and 36 months. Higher domain scores indicate better function. Minimal clinically important difference was defined as 6 for urinary incontinence, 5 for urinary irritative function, 4 for bowel function, 12 for sexual function, and 4 for hormonal function. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were fit to estimate the effect of treatment on patient-reported outcomes.ResultsFive-hundred seventy-eight men received EBRT and 109 received EB-LDR. Median patient age was 69 years, and 70% had intermediate- or high-risk disease. Men in the EB-LDR group were younger (P < .001) and less likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy (P < .001). Baseline urinary, bowel, sexual, and hormonal function was similar between treatment groups (P > .05). On multivariable analyses, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse urinary irritative function at 6 months (adjusted mean difference [AMD] -14.4, P < .001), 12 months (AMD -12.9, P < .001), and 36 months (AMD -4.7, P = .034) than men receiving EBRT. At 12 months, men receiving EB-LDR reported worse bowel function (AMD -5.8, P = .002), but these differences were not seen at 36 months. There were no significant differences in sexual or hormone function between treatment groups.ConclusionsMen treated with EB-LDR report worse bowel function at 1 year and worse urinary irritative function through 3 years compared with men treated with EBRT alone. These side effect profiles should be discussed with patients when considering EB-LDR versus EBRT treatment.