Examining the effectiveness and implementation of patient treatment decision‐aid tools for men with localised prostate cancer: A systematic review

Author:

Todio Elizabeth1,Sharp Jessica1,Morrow April2,Taylor Natalie2,Schofield Penelope1345,Mazariego Carolyn26

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychological Sciences Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne Victoria Australia

2. School of Population Health Faculty of Medicine and Health University of New South Wales Randwick New South Wales Australia

3. Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute Swinburne University Melbourne Victoria Australia

4. Behavioural Sciences Unit Health Services Research and Implementation Sciences Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Melbourne Victoria Australia

5. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology The University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia

6. The Daffodil Centre The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW Camperdown New South Wales Australia

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveMen diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) often face a difficult process deciding on a treatment choice that suits their personal preferences. This systematic review examines the impact of patient treatment decision‐aids (DAs) on decisional outcomes and treatment choice for men diagnosed with LPC. Our secondary aim was to examine how DAs have been implemented into routine clinical practice.MethodsA systematic search was conducted up to June 2022 using the following databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science. Articles were included if they evaluated the effectiveness of treatment DAs for LPC patients on various decisional outcomes and treatment choice. The Mixed‐Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess methodological quality and risk of bias. Data on implementation outcomes were also extracted if reported.ResultsTwenty‐four articles were included for the analysis (seven non‐randomised studies, 16 randomised control trials, and one qualitative study). Results showed DAs have the potential to improve patient knowledge but revealed no effects on decisional regret or preparedness in decision‐making. Due to the variability in methodology among studies, results varied widely for treatment choice, decision‐making involvement, decisional conflict, and treatment decision satisfaction. At least one implementation outcome was reported in 11 of the included studies, with the most commonly assessed outcomes being acceptability and appropriateness.ConclusionsWhile DAs appear to improve knowledge, further qualitative evaluations and standardised assessments are needed to better understand men's experiences using DAs and to determine advantages and optimal ways to implement DAs into the treatment decision‐making pathway.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Oncology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3