Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium

Author:

Diefenbach Michael AORCID,Marziliano AllisonORCID,Tagai Erin KORCID,Pfister HalieORCID,Lapitan EmmanuelORCID,Hall Simon JORCID,Vira ManishORCID,Ibrahim SaidORCID,Aibel KelliORCID,Kutikov AlexanderORCID,Horwitz Eric MORCID,Miyamoto CurtisORCID,Reese Adam CORCID,Miller Suzanne MORCID

Abstract

Background Elicitation of patients’ preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients’ preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients’ treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population. Objective This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life. Methods Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy. Results A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one’s decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant. Conclusions Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

Subject

Health Informatics

Reference29 articles.

1. MakarovDFagerlinAFinkelsteinJForcinoRGoreJHenningGKiechleJLaneGLangfordAPolitiMSchererLImplementation of shared decision making into urological practiceAmerican Urological Association20222023-08-08https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-and-quality/quality-and-measurement/quality-improvement/clinical-consensus-statement-and-quality-improvement-issue-brief-​(ccs-and-qiib)/shared-decision-making

2. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options

3. Health Literacy and Decisional Preferences in Hand Surgery

4. Health Literacy, Numeracy, and Other Characteristics Associated With Hospitalized Patients' Preferences for Involvement in Decision Making

5. Effect of Health Literacy on Decision-Making Preferences among Medically Underserved Patients

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