Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Urol. 2018 Jan;199(1):89-97. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.076. Epub 2017 Jul 25.

Decision Support with the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Author information

1
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: donna_berry@dfci.harvard.edu.
2
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
3
Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
4
Department of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
5
Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
6
University of Virginia Schools of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia.
7
Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia.
8
University of Washington School of Nursing, Seattle, Washington.
9
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
10
Department of Urology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
11
Department of Urology, University of Massachusetts Memorial Healthcare, Worcester, Massachusetts.
12
Private Practice, Niagara Falls, New York.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

We evaluated the efficacy of the web based P3P (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate) decision aid vs usual care with regard to decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A randomized (1:1), controlled, parallel group, nonblinded trial was performed in 4 regions of the United States. Eligible men had clinically localized prostate cancer and an upcoming consultation, and they spoke and read English or Spanish. Participants answered questionnaires to report decision making stage, personal characteristics, concerns and preferences plus baseline symptoms and decisional conflict. A randomization algorithm allocated participants to receive tailored education and communication coaching, generic teaching sheets and external websites plus a 1-page summary to clinicians (intervention) or the links plus materials provided in clinic (usual care). Conflict outcomes and the number of consultations were measured at 1 month. Univariate and multivariable models were used to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS:

A total of 392 men were randomized, including 198 to intervention and 194 to usual care, of whom 152 and 153, respectively, returned 1-month outcomes. The mean ± SD 1-month decisional conflict scale (score range 0 to 100) was 10.9 ± 16.7 for intervention and 9.9 ± 18.0 for usual care. The multivariable model revealed significantly reduced conflict in the intervention group (-5.00, 95% CI -9.40--0.59). Other predictors of conflict included income, marital or partner status, decision status, number of consultations, clinical site and D'Amico risk classification.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this multicenter trial the decision aid significantly reduced decisional conflict. Other variables impacted conflict and modified the effect of the decision aid, notably risk classification, consultations and resources. P3P is an effective adjunct for shared decision making in men with localized prostate cancer.

KEYWORDS:

decision support techniques; medical informatics; planning techniques; prostatic neoplasms; surveys and questionnaires

Comment in

PMID:
28754540
PMCID:
PMC5760348
DOI:
10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.076
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center