IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i6d10.1007_s40271-017-0255-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph D. Shirk

    (David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA)

  • Catherine M. Crespi

    (UCLA Fielding School of Public Health)

  • Josemanuel D. Saucedo

    (David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA)

  • Sylvia Lambrechts

    (David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA)

  • Ely Dahan

    (UCLA Anderson School of Management)

  • Robert Kaplan

    (UCLA Fielding School of Public Health)

  • Christopher Saigal

    (David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph D. Shirk & Catherine M. Crespi & Josemanuel D. Saucedo & Sylvia Lambrechts & Ely Dahan & Robert Kaplan & Christopher Saigal, 2017. "Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 785-798, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0255-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0255-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0255-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0255-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1999. "Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(5), pages 651-661, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    3. Jaime Moore & Matthew Haemer & Nazrat Mirza & Ying Z Weatherall & Joan Han & Caren Mangarelli & Mary Jane Hawkins & Stavra Xanthakos & Robert Siegel, 2019. "Pilot Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Adolescents with Severe Obesity in US Pediatric Weight Management Programs within the COMPASS Network," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Kevin Mertz & Romil F. Shah & Sara L. Eppler & Jeffrey Yao & Marc Safran & Ariel Palanca & Serena S. Hu & Michael Gardner & Derek F. Amanatullah & Robin N. Kamal, 2020. "A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 766-773, August.
    5. Sarah-Maude Deschênes & Marie-Pierre Gagnon & France Légaré & Annie Lapointe & Stéphane Turcotte & Sophie Desroches, 2013. "Psychosocial Factors of Dietitians' Intentions to Adopt Shared Decision Making Behaviours: A Cross-Sectional Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    6. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    7. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    8. Underman, Kelly & Hirshfield, Laura E., 2016. "Detached concern?: Emotional socialization in twenty-first century medical education," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 94-101.
    9. K. D. Valentine & Ha Vo & Floyd J. Fowler Jr. & Suzanne Brodney & Michael J. Barry & Karen R. Sepucha, 2021. "Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(2), pages 108-119, February.
    10. Tate, Alexandra, 2020. "Invoking death: How oncologists discuss a deadly outcome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    11. Wirtz, Veronika & Cribb, Alan & Barber, Nick, 2006. "Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation--A critical analysis of models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 116-124, January.
    12. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Sian K. Smith & Michael Wolf, 2010. "The Challenge of Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Lower Literacy: A Framework for Research and Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 35-44, January.
    13. Dyer, Thomas Anthony & Owens, Janine & Robinson, Peter Glenn, 2014. "The acceptability of care delegation in skill-mix: The salience of trust," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 170-178.
    14. Pamela B. Peele & Laura A. Siminoff & Ying Xu & Peter M. Ravdin, 2005. "Decreased Use of Adjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Aid with Individualized Risk Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 301-307, May.
    15. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    16. Angela Fagerlin & Karen R. Sepucha & Mick P. Couper & Carrie A. Levin & Eleanor Singer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2010. "Patients’ Knowledge about 9 Common Health Conditions: The DECISIONS Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 35-52, September.
    17. Peek, Monica E. & Odoms-Young, Angela & Quinn, Michael T. & Gorawara-Bhat, Rita & Wilson, Shannon C. & Chin, Marshall H., 2010. "Race and shared decision-making: Perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-9, July.
    18. May, Carl, 2013. "Agency and implementation: Understanding the embedding of healthcare innovations in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-33.
    19. Entwistle, Vikki & Williams, Brian & Skea, Zoe & MacLennan, Graeme & Bhattacharya, Siladitya, 2006. "Which surgical decisions should patients participate in and how? Reflections on women's recollections of discussions about variants of hysterectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 499-509, January.
    20. Glory Apantaku & Magda Aguiar & K. Julia Kaal & Patrick J. McDonald & Mary B. Connolly & Viorica Hrincu & Judy Illes & Mark Harrison, 2022. "Understanding Attributes that Influence Physician and Caregiver Decisions About Neurotechnology for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Formative Qualitative Study to Support the Development of a Dis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 219-232, March.

    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:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0255-7. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.