Dataset Information

What men want: Results from a national survey on decision making for prostate cancer treatment and research participation.

ABSTRACT: Data comparing outcomes in prostate cancer and factors affecting treatment choice are sparse. To inform the design of a comparative effectiveness clinical trial, we engaged patients in developing a 28-question survey about decision making on treatment and research participation and dispersed it among men greater than or equal to 50 years of age. The 1046 respondents ranked long-term clinical outcomes as most important in making treatment decisions, specific functional outcomes as slightly less important, and duration, location, and cost of treatment as least important. Treatment choice was strongly impacted by side effect profile. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two types of radiation with minimal differences in outcomes were "yes" in 15%, "no" in 39%, and "undecided" in 46%. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two treatment durations with similar outcomes were yes in 36%, no in 24%, and undecided in 40%. Findings suggest many potential patients have strong treatment preferences and are averse to randomization, particularly when outcomes of importance may be affected. Patient engagement in study design and novel nonrandomized trial designs may offer a path to increase clinical trial success.

SUBMITTER: Mendenhall NP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8604236 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What men want: Results from a national survey on decision making for prostate cancer treatment and research participation.

Mendenhall Nancy P NP Rausch Osian Sarah M SM Bryant Curtis M CM Hoppe Bradford S BS Morris Christopher G CG

Clinical and translational science 20210811 6

Data comparing outcomes in prostate cancer and factors affecting treatment choice are sparse. To inform the design of a comparative effectiveness clinical trial, we engaged patients in developing a 28-question survey about decision making on treatment and research participation and dispersed it among men greater than or equal to 50 years of age. The 1046 respondents ranked long-term clinical outcomes as most important in making treatment decisions, specific functional outcomes as slightly less i ...[more]

PMID: 34379363

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a longstanding concern about the accuracy of surrogate consent in representing the health care and research preferences of those who lose their ability to decide for themselves. We sought informed, deliberative views of the older general public (≥50 years old) regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to grant leeway to future surrogates to choose an option contrary to their stated wishes.Methodology/principal findings503 persons aged 50+ recruited by random digit dialing were randomly assigned to one of three groups: deliberation, education, or control. The deliberation group attended an all-day education/peer deliberation session; the education group received written information only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, after the deliberation session (or equivalent time), and one month after the session, regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to give leeway to surrogates, regarding studies of varying risk-benefit profiles (a lumbar puncture study, a drug randomized controlled trial, a vaccine randomized controlled trial, and an early phase gene transfer trial). At baseline, 48% (gene transfer scenario) to 92% (drug RCT) were willing to participate in future dementia research. A majority of respondents (57-71% depending on scenario) were willing to give leeway to future surrogate decision-makers. Democratic deliberation increased willingness to participate in all scenarios, to grant leeway in 3 of 4 scenarios (lumbar puncture, vaccine, and gene transfer), and to enroll loved ones in research in all scenarios. On average, respondents were more willing to volunteer themselves for research than to enroll their loved ones.Conclusions/significanceMost people were willing to grant leeway to their surrogates, and this willingness was either sustained or increased after democratic deliberation, suggesting that the attitude toward leeway is a reliable opinion. Eliciting a person's current preferences about future research participation should also involve eliciting his or her leeway preferences.

Project description:ObjectiveThere was increasingly demand of participation in surgical decision-making among Chinese patients with prostate cancer. However, due to the complex healthcare system and advanced care settings, it is quite challenging for the patients to gain sufficient support from the institute and the government. This research aimed to investigate the factors that impact the degree of participation in surgical decision-making among Chinese prostate cancer patients.MethodsA phenomenological approach of qualitative research based on the results of semi-structured interviews was adopted, to explore the influencing factors which hinder the participation in surgical decision-making. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research were utilized. Up to 160 post-operative patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy along with 68 medical and nursing staffs, were purposively recruited in this research. This retrospective study was carried out from September 2018 to August 2019. After recording and transcribing the interviews, the interview materials were evaluated via the Colaizzi's seven step approach and the NVivo Version 10 software to analyze the interview content.ResultsAccording to the analysis and summary of the interviews, there were three factors affecting the degree of participation in surgical decision-making. Firstly, insufficient information was provided by medical and nursing staffs because of their lack of time, proper communication skills, and career experience, as well as difficulties in the development of patient decision aid and inconsistent resource availability. Secondly, the cognitive level of decision-making among patients was relatively low due to poor psychological endurance, insufficient amount of education, senility, and less knowledge and information demand. Ultimately, decisions were constantly made by family members with/without patients.ConclusionsThe degree of participation of Chinese prostate cancer patients in the surgical decision-making had much space for improvement.

Project description:BackgroundElicitation 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsHealium, 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

Project description:Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia can be treated with intensive chemotherapy, low-intensity therapy such as low-dose aracytine or hypomethylating agents, or best supportive care. The choice between these treatments is a function of many patient-related and disease-related factors. We investigated how physicians' behavioral characteristics affect medical decision-making between intensive and non-intensive therapy in this setting. A nationwide cross-sectional online survey of hematologists collected data on medical decision-making for 6 clinical vignettes involving older acute myeloid leukemia patients that were representative of routine practice. Questionnaires elicited physicians' demographic and occupational characteristics along with their individual behavioral characteristics according to a decision theory framework. From the pattern of responses to the vignettes, a K-means clustering algorithm was used to distinguish those who were likely to prescribe more intensive therapy and those who were likely to prescribe less intensive or no therapy. Multivariate analyses were used to identify physician's characteristics predictive of medical decision-making. We obtained 230 assessable answers, which represented an adjusted response rate of 45.4%. A multivariate model (n=210) revealed that physicians averse to uncertainty recommend significantly more intensive chemotherapy: Odds Ratio (OR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)]: 1.15 [1.01;1.30]; P=0.039. Male physicians who do not conform to the expected utility model (assumed as economically irrational) recommend more intensive chemotherapy [OR (95% CI) = 3.45 (1.34; 8.85); P=0.01]. Patient volume per physician also correlated with therapy intensity [OR (95% CI)=0.98 (0.96; 0.99); P=0.032]. The physicians' medical decision-making was not affected by their age, years of experience, or hospital facility. The significant association between medical decision and individual behavioral characteristics of the physician identifies a novel non-biological factor that may affect acute myeloid leukemia patients' outcomes and explain variations in clinical practice. It should also encourage the use of validated predictive models and the description of novel bio-markers to best select patients for intensive chemotherapy or low-intensity therapy.

Project description:Background. Multiple studies have shown that digitally mediated decision aids help prepare patients for medical decision making with their providers. However, few studies have investigated whether decision-support preferences differ between non-English-speaking and English-speaking Latino men with limited literacy. Objective. To identify and compare health information seeking patterns, preferences for information presentation, and interest in digital decision aids in a sample of Southern Californian underserved Latino men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer at a county hospital. Methods. We conducted semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews with 12 Spanish-speaking and 8 English-speaking Latino men using a purposive sampling technique. Following transcription of taped interviews, Spanish interviews were translated. Using a coding protocol developed by the team, two bilingual members jointly analyzed the transcripts for emerging themes. Coder agreement exceeded 80%. Differences were resolved through discussion. Results. Thematic differences between groups with different preferred languages emerged. Most respondents engaged in online health information seeking using cellphones, perceived a paternalistic patient-provider relationship, and expressed willingness to use hypothetical digital decision aids if recommended by their provider. English speakers reported higher digital technology proficiency for health-related searches. They also more frequently indicated family involvement in digital search related to their condition and preferred self-guided, web-based decision aids. In comparison, Spanish speakers reported lower digital technology proficiency and preferred family-involved, coach-guided, paper and visual decision aids. English speakers reported substantially higher levels of formal education. Conclusion. Preferences regarding the use of digital technology to inform prostate cancer treatment decision making among underserved Latino men varied depending on preferred primary language. Effective preparation of underserved Latino men for shared decision making requires consideration of alternative approaches depending on level of education attainment and preferred primary language.

Project description:ImportanceThe magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathway for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) uses multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for prostate biopsy (PB) decision-making. However, the intermediate impact on patient outcomes in men with negative MRI results avoiding PB and men with positive MRI results without PCa remains unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility and safety of a community-based MRI diagnostic strategy in men with suspected PCa using 3-year active monitoring.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite, longitudinal cohort trial took place across 54 community-based urology practices and 2 radiology imaging centers at a referral academic institution in Berlin, Germany. Eligible participants aged 18 to 75 years with clinically suspected PCa were enrolled between September 2016 and December 2017 and monitored for 3 years. Final analysis was reported on December 23, 2023.ExposuresParticipants underwent 3-T mpMRI. Men with findings suspected to be PCa were recommended for targeted PB (diagnostic phase). Men with negative mpMRI results or positive mpMRI results with benign findings at PB were systematically monitored for 3 years (monitoring phase). Clinical visits were recommended every 6 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe total proportion of men avoiding PB and those with csPCa.ResultsA total of 593 men (median [IQR] age, 64 [58-70] years) underwent mpMRI, with 286 (48%) having negative MRI results, 261 (44%) avoiding PB initially, and 242 (41%) avoiding PB over 3 years. csPCa was detected in 161 (27%) men after immediate PB, increasing to 172 (29%) men after 3 years. Seven men with negative MRI results were diagnosed with PCa by immediate PB (including 4 cases of csPCa), while 279 entered monitoring. Three-year monitoring was completed by 233 (84%) men, with 7 diagnoses of csPCa. Of 307 men with positive MRI results, 58 (19%) showed no PCa after immediate PB, of which 41 (71%) completed monitoring and 4 (7%) were diagnosed with csPCa.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, men with negative mpMRI results avoiding biopsy were not at elevated risk of csPCa. The study confirms the oncological safety of the prebiopsy MRI strategy of avoiding an immediate PB after negative MRI results when a programmatic safety net is in place.

Project description:IntroductionThe participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs' decision-making process to participate in research.MethodsWe used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels.ResultsThe GPs' decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs' decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs' participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs' confidence in taking part in future research.ConclusionsThe key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs' social environments and research support.

Dataset Information

What men want: Results from a national survey on decision making for prostate cancer treatment and research participation.

Publications

What men want: Results from a national survey on decision making for prostate cancer treatment and research participation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets