Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 9 (1), 125-132

Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Personalized Decision Support Intervention for Low Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

Affiliations

Development and Pilot Evaluation of a Personalized Decision Support Intervention for Low Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

Jeffrey Belkora et al. Cancer Med.

Abstract

Objectives: Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early-stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation.

Methods: We developed a decision aid featuring long-term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI-PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI-PC: How many men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: "Most will die of something else" and "A little or not at all."

Results: The development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi-square test).

Conclusions: The intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings.

Keywords: behavioral science; cancer education; ethical considerations; prostate cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scatterplot of paired decision self‐efficacy scores (before and after)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatterplot of paired total knowledge scores (before intervention and after consultation)

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Daum LM, Reamer EN, Ruterbusch JJ, et al. Patient knowledge and qualities of treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30:288. - PubMed
    1. Beydoun HA, Mohan R, Beydoun MA, et al. Development of a scale to assess patient misperceptions about treatment choices for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010;106:334. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McGregor S. What information patients with localised prostate cancer hear and understand. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;49:273. - PubMed
    1. Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Steiner JF. Patient treatment preferences in localized prostate carcinoma: the influence of emotion, misconception, and anecdote. Cancer. 2006;107:620. - PubMed
    1. Hoffman RM, Lo M, Clark JA, et al. Treatment decision regret among long‐term survivors of localized prostate cancer: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2306. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback