Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 6;11(4):e0152999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152999. eCollection 2016.

The Role of Personalised Choice in Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Online Decision Aid for Prostate Cancer Screening.

Author information

1
Faculty of Social Sciences, University Of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
2
Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
3
Faculty of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
4
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
5
Westmead Clinical School, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
6
Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
7
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE:

Decision support tools can assist people to apply population-based evidence on benefits and harms to individual health decisions. A key question is whether "personalising" choice within decisions aids leads to better decision quality.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the effect of personalising the content of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening using the Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test.

DESIGN:

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING:

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS:

1,970 men aged 40-69 years were approached to participate in the trial.

INTERVENTION:

1,447 men were randomly allocated to either a standard decision aid with a fixed set of five attributes or a personalised decision aid with choice over the inclusion of up to 10 attributes.

OUTCOME MEASURES:

To determine whether there was a difference between the two groups in terms of: 1) the emergent opinion (generated by the decision aid) to have a PSA test or not; 2) self-rated decision quality after completing the online decision aid; 3) their intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months. We also wanted to determine whether men in the personalised choice group made use of the extra decision attributes.

RESULTS:

5% of men in the fixed attribute group scored 'Have a PSA test' as the opinion generated by the aid, as compared to 62% of men in the personalised choice group (χ2 = 569.38, 2df, p< 0001). Those men who used the personalised decision aid had slightly higher decision quality (t = 2.157, df = 1444, p = 0.031). The men in the personalised choice group made extensive use of the additional decision attributes. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of their stated intention to undergo screening in the next 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS:

Together, these findings suggest that personalised decision support systems could be an important development in shared decision-making and patient-centered care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12612000723886.

PMID:
27050101
PMCID:
PMC4822955
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0152999
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center