Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment - A systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Context
Despite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools.

Objective
To identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs.

Materials and methods
DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990–2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified.

Results
International Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients’ values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice.

Conclusions
Our review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)409-429
JournalUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume37
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Patient Participation
Patient Preference
MEDLINE
Communication

Keywords

  • Decision aids
  • Prostate cancer
  • Shared decision-making
  • Risk communication
  • Health communication
  • decision support systems
  • Communication
  • Patient Education as Topic

Cite this

@article{5ca380de8c544dbfac51dd50b99a7d4f,
title = "Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment - A systematic review",
abstract = "ContextDespite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools.ObjectiveTo identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs.Materials and methodsDAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990–2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified.ResultsInternational Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients’ values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice.ConclusionsOur review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.",
keywords = "Decision aids, Prostate cancer, Shared decision-making, Risk communication, Health communication, decision support systems, Communication, Patient Education as Topic",
author = "Ruben Vromans and {van Eenbergen}, Mies and Steffen Pauws and Gijs Geleijnse and {van der Poel}, Henk and {van de Poll-Franse}, L.V. and Emiel Krahmer",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.04.005",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "409--429",
journal = "Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations",
issn = "1078-1439",
publisher = "Elsevier Science Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment - A systematic review

AU - Vromans, Ruben

AU - van Eenbergen, Mies

AU - Pauws, Steffen

AU - Geleijnse, Gijs

AU - van der Poel, Henk

AU - van de Poll-Franse, L.V.

AU - Krahmer, Emiel

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - ContextDespite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools.ObjectiveTo identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs.Materials and methodsDAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990–2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified.ResultsInternational Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients’ values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice.ConclusionsOur review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.

AB - ContextDespite increasing interest in the development and use of decision aids (DAs) for patients with localized prostate cancer (LPC), little attention has been paid to communicative aspects (CAs) of such tools.ObjectiveTo identify DAs for LPC treatment, and review these tools for various CAs.Materials and methodsDAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO; 1990–2018) and online sources, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Identified DAs were reviewed for the International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, and analyzed on CAs, including information presentation, personalization, interaction, information control, accessibility, suitability, and source of information. Nineteen DAs were identified.ResultsInternational Patient Decision Aid Standards scores varied greatly among DAs. Crucially, substantial variations in use of CAs by DAs were identified: (1) few DAs used visual aids to communicate statistical information, (2) none were personalized in terms of outcome probabilities or mode of communication, (3) a minority used interactive methods to elicit patients’ values and preferences, (4) most included biased cross tables to compare treatment options, and (5) issues were observed in suitability and accessibility that could hinder implementation in clinical practice.ConclusionsOur review suggests that DAs for LPC treatment could be further improved by adding CAs such as personalized outcome predictions and interaction methods to the DAs. Clinicians who are using or developing such tools might therefore consider these CAs in order to enhance patient participation in treatment decision-making.

KW - Decision aids

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Shared decision-making

KW - Risk communication

KW - Health communication

KW - decision support systems

KW - Communication

KW - Patient Education as Topic

U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.04.005

DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.04.005

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 409

EP - 429

JO - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

JF - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

SN - 1078-1439

IS - 7

ER -