These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer.
    Author: Shirk JD, Crespi CM, Saucedo JD, Lambrechts S, Dahan E, Kaplan R, Saigal C.
    Journal: Patient; 2017 Dec; 10(6):785-798. PubMed ID: 28623628.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to medical decision making that can improve decisional quality. Decision aids are tools that facilitate SDM in the context of limited physician time; however, many decision aids do not incorporate preference measurement. OBJECTIVES: We aim to understand whether adding preference measurement to a standard patient educational intervention improves decisional quality and is feasible in a busy clinical setting. METHODS: Men with incident localized prostate cancer (n = 122) were recruited from the Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center urology clinic, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, and Harbor UCLA Medical Center from January 2011 to May 2015 and randomized to education with a brochure about prostate cancer treatment or software-based preference assessment in addition to the brochure. Men undergoing preference assessment received a report detailing the relative strength of their preferences for treatment outcomes used in review with their doctor. Participants completed instruments measuring decisional conflict, knowledge, SDM, and patient satisfaction with care before and/or after their cancer consultation. RESULTS: Baseline knowledge scores were low (mean 62%). The baseline mean total score on the Decisional Conflict Scale was 2.3 (±0.9), signifying moderate decisional conflict. Men undergoing preference assessment had a significantly larger decrease in decisional conflict total score (p = 0.023) and the Perceived Effective Decision Making subscale (p = 0.003) post consult compared with those receiving education only. Improvements in satisfaction with care, SDM, and knowledge were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level preference assessment is feasible in the clinic setting. Patients with prostate cancer who undergo preference assessment are more certain about their treatment decisions and report decreased levels of decisional conflict when making these decisions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]