Dataset Information

The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening on a scale of 1-unlikely to 100-extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with prostate cancer screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions. RESULTS:Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50% were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening decreased from 83 to 78 following decision aid exposure (p <0.001). Reviewing the decision aid from the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Family Physicians did not alter the likelihood (each p >0.2). However, the decision aid from the United States Preventive Services Task Force was associated with the largest decrease in screening preference (-16.0, p <0.001). Participants reported increased comfort (from 3.5 to 4.1 of 5) with the decision making process of prostate cancer screening following exposure to a decision aid (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Exposure to a decision aid decreased the participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening and increased comfort with the screening process.

SUBMITTER: Weiner AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6203648 | biostudies-other | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study.

Weiner Adam B AB Tsai Kyle P KP Keeter Mary-Kate MK Victorson David E DE Schaeffer Edward M EM Catalona William J WJ Kundu Shilajit D SD

The Journal of urology 20180529 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of ...[more]

PMID: 29852180

Similar Datasets

Project description:The conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the mixed messages communicated to the public about screening effectiveness make it critical to assist men in making informed decisions.To assess the effectiveness of 2 decision aids in helping men make informed PCa screening decisions.A racially diverse group of male outpatients aged 45 to 70 years from 3 sites were interviewed by telephone at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months, from 2007 through 2011. We conducted intention-to-treat univariate analyses and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses, adjusting for baseline outcome measures.Random assignment to print-based decision aid (n?=?628), web-based interactive decision aid (n?=?625), or usual care (UC) (n?=?626).Prostate cancer knowledge, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and whether participants underwent PCa screening.Of 4794 eligible men approached, 1893 were randomized. At each follow-up assessment, univariate and multivariable analyses indicated that both decision aids resulted in significantly improved PCa knowledge and reduced decisional conflict compared with UC (all P <.001). At 1 month, the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) in knowledge for the web group vs UC was 0.74, and in the print group vs UC, 0.73. Decisional conflict was significantly lower for web vs UC (d?=?0.33) and print vs UC (d?=?0.36). At 13 months, these differences were smaller but remained significant. At 1 month, high satisfaction was reported by significantly more print (60.4%) than web participants (52.2%; P?=?.009) and significantly more web (P?=?.001) and print (P?=?.03) than UC participants (45.5%). At 13 months, differences in the proportion reporting high satisfaction among print (55.7%) compared with UC (49.8%; P?=?.06) and web participants (50.4%; P?=?.10) were not significant. Screening rates at 13 months did not differ significantly among groups.Both decision aids improved participants’ informed decision making about PCa screening up to 13 months later but did not affect actual screening rates. Dissemination of these decision aids may be a valuable public health tool.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196807.

Project description:ImportanceUS guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018.Study selectionRandomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice.ResultsOf 19 eligible trials (12 781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I2 = 67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I2 = 75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I2 = 60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I2 = 36%; low quality).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is considered a preference sensitive decision; meaning it does not only depend on what is best from a medical point of view, but also from a patient value standpoint. Decision aids are evidence-based tools which are shown to help people feel clearer about their values; therefore it has been advocated that decision aids should contain a specific values clarification method (VCM). VCMs may be either implicit or explicit, but the evidence concerning the best method is scarce. We aim to compare the perceived clarity of personal values in men considering PSA screening using decision aids with no VCM versus an implicit VCM versus an explicit VCM. METHODS:Male factory employees from an industrial facility in the Northern region of Portugal aged 50 to 69?years old will be randomly assigned to one of three decision aid groups used to support prostate cancer screening decisions: (i) decision aid with information only (control), (ii) decision aid with information plus an implicit VCM, (iii) decision aid with information plus an explicit VCM. Men will be allowed release time from work to attend a session at their workplace. After a brief oral presentation, those willing to participate in the study will fill the baseline questionnaire, plus a 5 point-Likert scale question about intentions to undergo screening, and will then receive the intervention materials to complete. We estimated a total sample size of 276 participants; with 92 in each group. The primary outcome will be the perceived clarity of personal values assessed by the Portuguese validated translation of the three subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes will be intention to be screened (before and after the intervention), the total score from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the self-report of having or not undergone screening at 6?months. DISCUSSION:This study will add to the body of evidence on the role of decision aids to support health preference-sensitive choices and provide further insight on the impact of different methods for eliciting people's values embedded within a decision aid. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03988673 - clinicalTrials.gov (2019/06/17).

Dataset Information

The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study.

Publications

The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets