IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i13-14p2251-2259.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and randomised controlled trial of a Continence Product Patient Decision Aid for men postradical prostatectomy

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine Murphy
  • Christine de Laine
  • Margaret Macaulay
  • Mandy Fader

Abstract

Aims and Objectives To develop and evaluate an evidence‐based Continence Product Patient Decision Aid (CP‐PDA) to reduce decisional conflict and support continence product choice for men postradical prostatectomy. Background In 2018, 1.3 million men globally were diagnosed with prostate cancer. A common treatment is radical prostatectomy, usually leading to sudden onset of urinary incontinence. For people experiencing incontinence, products to contain leakage are fundamental to health‐related quality of life, but many product users and healthcare professionals are unaware of available options. No evidence‐based guidance on choosing products exists despite known physical and psychological burdens of poorly managed leakage (e.g. isolation, anxiety, depression, skin damage). Design and Methods 4 phases, underpinned by international decision aid guidance. Evidence/expert opinion: Literature review; consultation with specialist continence clinicians (n = 7) to establish evidence base. Prototype: CP‐PDA developed with continence specialist (n = 7) feedback. Alpha testing (stakeholders): CP‐PDA materials were provided to expert patients (n = 10) and clinicians (n = 11) to assess content/presentation. Beta testing (field) following CONSORT guidelines, registered NIHR CPMS 31077: Men (n = 50) postradical prostatectomy randomised to evaluate usability and decision‐making using the Decisional Conflict Scale compared with usual care. Results An algorithm differentiating patients by mobility, dependency, cognitive impairment and type/level of leakage, leading to 12 user groups, was developed. For each group, an option table and associated product information sheets guide product choice. Total Decisional Conflict Score for men using the CP‐PDA was significantly better than for men without. CP‐PDA users reported greater confidence in product knowledge and choice. Conclusion This is the first evidence‐based CP‐PDA, developed using an internationally recognised method. Compared to usual care, it significantly reduced decisional conflict for men choosing continence products postprostatectomy. Relevance to clinical Practice The CP‐PDA provides nurses with the first comprehensive, evidence‐based intervention to help postprostatectomy men in complex continence product choices. An online version is available: www.continenceproductadvisor.org.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Murphy & Christine de Laine & Margaret Macaulay & Mandy Fader, 2020. "Development and randomised controlled trial of a Continence Product Patient Decision Aid for men postradical prostatectomy," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2251-2259, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:13-14:p:2251-2259
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15223
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15223?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:13-14:p:2251-2259. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.