Purpose: While many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DA affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient-provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a typical medical oriented DA compared to a patient centered decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making and the decision making process in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.Patients and Methods: 1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a patient centered or standard language DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and whom completed pre-clinic surveys. Survey measures: baseline (Time 1); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (Time 2); one week following the physician visit (Time 3). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients’ use and satisfaction with the DA.Results: Participants who received the patient centered DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p=0.03), found the DA more helpful (p’s<0.01) and were more likely to be considering surveillance (p=0.03) compared to those receiving the standard language DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received.Conclusions: The patient centered DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients’ treatment preferences.

BackgroundDecision Aids (DAs) effectively translate medical evidence for patients but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Little is known about how DAs are used during patient-clinician encounters. ObjectiveTo characterize the content and communicative function of high-quality DAs during diagnostic clinic visits for prostate cancer. Participants252 men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had received a DA, 45 treating physicians at 4 US Veterans Administration urology clinics. MethodsQualitative analysis of transcribed audio recordings was used to inductively develop categories capturing content and function of all direct references to DAs (booklet talk). The presence or absence of any booklet talk per transcript was also calculated. ResultsBooklet talk occurred in 55% of transcripts. Content focused on surgical procedures (36%); treatment choice (22%); and clarifying risk classification (17%). The most common function of booklet talk was patient corroboration of physicians' explanations (42%), followed by either physician or patient acknowledgement that the patient had the booklet. Codes reflected the absence of DA use for shared decision-making. In regression analysis, predictors of booklet talk were fewer years of patient education (P=.027) and more time in the encounter (P=.027). Patient race, DA type, time reading the DA, physician informing quality and physician age did not predict booklet talk. ConclusionsResults show that good decision aids, systematically provided to patients, appeared to function not to open up deliberations about how to balance benefits and harms of competing treatments, but rather to allow patients to ask narrow technical questions about recommended treatments.

INTRODUCTION:The American Urological Association Quality Improvement Summit occurs regularly to provide education and promote dialogue around the issues of quality improvement and patient safety. Nearly all prostate cancer screening guidelines recommend shared decision making strategies when determining whether prostate specific antigen testing is right for a specific patient. This summit, held in partnership with the Society for Medical Decision Making, focused on techniques to identify and understand patient values in relation to prostate cancer screening and treatment, and to promote incorporation of shared decision making into prostate cancer screening discussions. METHODS:Information presented at the Quality Improvement Summit was provided by physicians and leading experts in the field of shared decision making. The open forum of this summit encouraged contributions from participants about their personal experiences with shared decision making and their thoughts on the tools presented during the day. RESULTS:Shared decision making supports collaboration between physician and patient in situations where there are multiple preference sensitive options. CONCLUSIONS:Practitioners should include formal shared decision making procedures surrounding prostate specific antigen testing in their practices to ensure that testing is in accordance with patient values and desired outcomes. Tools and strategies like those reviewed in this Quality Improvement Summit are invaluable for alleviating potential burden on providers, ensuring communication and improving quality of care.

INTRODUCTION:Little is known about how physicians present diagnosis and treatment planning in routine practice in preference-sensitive treatment decisions. We evaluated completeness and quality of informed decision making in localized prostate cancer post biopsy encounters.METHODS:We analyzed audio-recorded office visits of 252 men with presumed localized prostate cancer (Gleason 6 and Gleason 7 scores) who were seeing 45 physicians at 4 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Data were collected between September 2008 and May 2012 in a trial of 2 decision aids (DAs). Braddock's previously validated Informed Decision Making (IDM) system was used to measure quality. Latent variable models for ordinal data examined the relationship of IDM score to treatment received.RESULTS:Mean IDM score showed modest quality (7.61±2.45 out of 18) and high variability. Treatment choice and risks and benefits were discussed in approximately 95% of encounters. However, in more than one-third of encounters, physicians provided a partial set of treatment options and omitted surveillance as a choice. Informing quality was greater in patients treated with surveillance (β = 1.1, p = .04). Gleason score (7 vs 6) and lower age were often cited as reasons to exclude surveillance. Patient preferences were elicited in the majority of cases, but not used to guide treatment planning. Encounter time was modestly correlated with IDM score (r = 0.237, p = .01). DA type was not associated with IDM score.DISCUSSION:Physicians informed patients of options and risks and benefits, but infrequently engaged patients in core shared decision-making processes. Despite patients having received DAs, physicians rarely provided an opportunity for preference-driven decision making. More attention to the underused patient decision-making and engagement elements could result in improved shared decision making.

Rationale, aims and objectives:Shared Decision-Making (SDM) is increasingly recommended to improve patient-centered care. Implementation of SDM in routine practice has been challenging. Our aim was to develop and evaluate a brief SDM workshop based on a communication skills approach for primary care physicians (PCPs). The clinical problem chosen was one in which over-treatment is a concern: screening and treatment options in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) following a mildly abnormal stress test. Method: Essential training tasks were identified from existing communication skills and shared decision-making skills. A 90-minute workshop was developed for use with a patient decision aid. Didactic content and role plays featuring 3 case scenarios with interactive feedback formed the approach. Participants were academic internal and family medicine PCPs. Retrospective pre-post surveys evaluated self-reported effectiveness in actual clinic encounters. Results: Seventy-two percent (21/29) of PCPs in the 2 clinics participated in the Communication-Shared Decision Making (COMM-SDM) Training Program. Providers reported increased confidence in doing shared decision-making with CAD patients. Decreases in confidence occurred in the specific task of “setting the stage for the encounter”. Some PCPs were uncomfortable with counseling patients making decisions about optimal medical therapy or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preferring the cardiologist to discuss the options.Conclusions: SDM as an extension of a communication approach appears logistically feasible. The essential tasks of this training approach may be applicable to other clinical decisions where shared decision-making is appropriate, either because the decisions are preference sensitive or because testing and treatment patterns are frequently inconsistent with scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND:We describe the results of cognitive interviews to refine the "Making Choices©" Decision Aid (DA) for shared decision-making (SDM) about stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).METHODS:We conducted a systematic development process to design a DA consistent with International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) focused on Alpha testing criteria. Cognitive interviews were conducted with ten stable CAD patients using the "think aloud" interview technique to assess the clarity, usefulness, and design of each page of the DA.RESULTS:Participants identified three main messages: 1) patients have multiple options based on stress tests and they should be discussed with a physician, 2) take care of yourself, 3) the stress test is the gold standard for determining the severity of your heart disease. Revisions corrected the inaccurate assumption of item number three.CONCLUSIONS:Cognitive interviews proved critical for engaging patients in the development process and highlighted the necessity of clear message development and use of design principles that make decision materials easy to read and easy to use. Cognitive interviews appear to contribute critical information from the patient perspective to the overall systematic development process for designing decision aids.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a nurse-led educational group visit (GV) as part of a multifaceted intervention, Shared Decision Making (SDM) Guidance Reminders in Practice, to prompt SDM in primary care about angiography in stable coronary artery disease. Methods: A process evaluation designed to test the feasibility of a nurse-led educational GV was conducted. The evaluation used retrospective pre-post surveys. Results: Nurse-led GV was well received and logistically feasible. Patients gained knowledge of options and confidence in doing SDM with providers. However, recruitment at the point of the educational GV was below the threshold of 12 patients per group that would support sustaining this approach in fee-for-service clinical practice. Conclusions: Nurse-led GV can produce gains in knowledge and confidence required for patients to participate in SDM. However, the constraints of time and personnel required to bring groups of patients together require new approaches. Future development will focus on adapting the content of the GV for SDM as an electronic teaching module associated with integrated personal health records.

Objectives: Primary care providers often care for men with prostate cancer due to its prolonged clinical course and an increasing number of survivors. However, their attitudes and care patterns are inadequately studied. In this context, we surveyed primary care providers regarding the scope of their prostate cancer survivorship care.Methods: The 2006 Early Detection and Screening for Prostate Cancer Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice Survey conducted by the Michigan Public Health Institute investigated the beliefs and practice patterns of primary care providers in Michigan. We evaluated responses from 902 primary care providers regarding the timing and content of their prostate cancer survivorship care and relationships with specialty care.Results: Two-thirds (67.6%) of providers cared for men during and after prostate cancer treatment. Providers routinely inquired about incontinence, impotence and bowel problems (83.3%), with a few (14.2%) using surveys to measure symptoms. However, only a minority felt 'very comfortable' managing the side effects of prostate cancer treatment. Clear plans (76.1%) and details regarding management of treatment complications (65.2%) from treating specialists were suboptimal. Nearly one-half (45.1%) of providers felt it was equally appropriate for them and treating specialists to provide prostate cancer survivorship care.Conclusions: Primary care providers reported that prostate cancer survivorship care is prevalent in their practice, yet few felt very comfortable managing side effects of prostate cancer treatment. To improve quality of care, implementing prostate cancer survivorship care plans across specialties, or transferring primary responsibility to primary care providers through survivorship guidelines, should be considered. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

CONTEXT:Advances in screening and treatment of prostate cancer have dramatically increased the number of survivors in the US population. Yet the effect of screening is controversial, and in some instances may not be beneficial. Previous studies have typically only reported outcomes of treatment and symptoms within a short time frame following treatment. The persistence of such symptoms over time necessitates an improvement of survivor care so that the medical and support needs of these patients are met.OBJECTIVE:This study aims to perform a patient-centered survey of prostate cancer survivors in the Michigan Cancer Registry to identify treatment side effect rates, evaluate survivors' access to preventive care services post-prostate cancer treatment, and assess the informational needs of these survivors regarding their prostate cancer.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS:Linking case files of the Michigan Cancer Registry with records from the National Death Index, we identified prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1985 and 2004 and alive on 31 December 2005. Participants were selected using a stratified cross-sectional sampling strategy to ensure adequate inclusion of survivors based upon race and ethnicity, urban versus rural location, and number of years since diagnosis of prostate cancer. A total of 2,499 surveys were completed and returned.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:(1) Physical symptoms--assessing bowel, sexual, urinary, and vitality symptoms by treatment modality. (2) Access to care--identifying whether diagnostic tests for prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination) were performed. Determining whether the survivors had knowledge of the "watchful waiting" paradigm for prostate cancer surveillance. (3) Informational needs--assessing whether the informational needs of patients were addressed by providers. Evaluating the significant predictors associated with seeking information about prostate cancer from any other source. Identifying what factors influenced a person to actively seek out information and what factors guide which primary information source a survivor would use.RESULTS:Median duration between prostate cancer diagnosis and survey response was 9 years. Of the study population, 80 % was diagnosed at an early stage. Survivors had reported significant problems in the 4 weeks prior to survey. Of the survivors, 88.1 % reported having a PSA test since diagnosis of prostate cancer, with 93 % of them having it done at least once per year. Of the survivors, 82.6 % reported that a healthcare provider gave them information on prostate cancer. Of this 82.6 %, 86.4 % had this information provided by a urologist, 45.4 % by a primary care physician, and 29.2 % by an oncologist. The primary source of information for these survivors was "healthcare provider" (59.2 %).CONCLUSION:Persistent symptoms subsequent to prostate cancer treatment suggest a gap in symptom management. Future research should support long-term studies of active surveillance versus active treatment outcomes to understand the feasibility of minimizing the burden of long-term physical symptoms arising from prostate cancer treatment. Clinicians must assess post-treatment distress long after treatment has ended to identify when supportive care is needed. More informational resources should be allocated to prostate cancer survivors to ensure that they are well-educated about their prognosis.IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS:This study is needed to ensure that the post-treatment symptoms of prostate cancer survivors are properly addressed and managed by healthcare providers over the long term.

Background: Effective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user's health literacy and the PtDA's characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess: 1. a) the effects of health literacy / numeracy on selected decision-making outcomes, and b) the effects of interventions designed to mitigate the influence of lower health literacy on decision-making outcomes, and 2. the extent to which existing PtDAs a) account for health literacy, and b) are tested in lower health literacy populations.Methods: We reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.Results: Aim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.Conclusion: Lower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients.

Background We know little about patient-physician communication during visits to discuss diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer.Objective To examine the overall visit structure and how patients and physicians transition between communication activities during visits in which patients received new prostate cancer diagnoses.Participants Forty veterans and 18 urologists at one VA medical centre.Methods We coded 40 transcripts to identify major communication activities during visits and used empiric discourse analysis to analyse transitions between activities.Results We identified five communication activities that occurred in the following typical sequence: 'diagnosis delivery', 'risk classification', 'options talk', 'decision talk' and 'next steps'. The first two activities were typically brief and involved minimal patient participation. Options talk was typically the longest activity; physicians explicitly announced the beginning of options talk and framed it as their professional responsibility. Some patients were unsure of the purpose of visit and/or who should make treatment decisions.Conclusion Visits to deliver the diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer follow a regular sequence of communication activities. Physicians focus on discussing treatment options and devote comparatively little time and attention to discussing the new cancer diagnosis. Towards the goal of promoting patient-centred communication, physicians should consider eliciting patient reactions after diagnosis delivery and explaining the decision-making process before describing treatment options.

OBJECTIVE:Develop a system of practice tools and procedures to prompt shared decision making in primary care. SDM-GRIP (Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice) was developed for suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), prior to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decision. METHODS:Program evaluation of SDM-GRIP components: Grand Rounds, provider training (communication skills and clinical evidence), decision aid (DA), patient group visit, encounter decision guide (EDG), SDM provider visit. RESULTS:Participation-Physician training=73% (21/29); patient group visits=25% of patients with diagnosis of CAD contacted (43/168). SDM visits=16% (27/168). Among SDM visit pairs, 82% of responding providers reported using the EDG in SDM encounters. Patients valued the SDM-GRIP program, and wanted to discuss comparative effectiveness information with a cardiologist. SDM visits were routinely reimbursed. CONCLUSION:Program elements were well received and logistically feasible. However, recruitment to an extra educational group visit was low. Future implementation will move SDM-GRIP to the point of routine ordering of non-emergent stress tests to retain pre-decision timing of PCI and to improve coordination of care, with SDM tools available across primary care and cardiology. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:Guidance prompts and provider training appear feasible. Implementation at stress testing requires further investigation.

Although the effectiveness of prostate cancer screening is controversial, screening rates have risen dramatically among primary care providers in the United States. The authors' findings suggest more collaboration among primary care and specialty organizations, especially with respect to decision aid endorsement, is needed to achieve more discriminatory and patient-centered prostate cancer screening.

Objective. To describe the extent to which patient decision aids (PtDAs) meet effectiveness standards of the International Patient Decision Aids Collaboration (IPDAS). Data sources. Five electronic databases (to July 2006) and personal contacts (to December 2006). Results. Among 55 randomized controlled trials, 38 (69%) used at least 1 measure that mapped onto an IPDAS effectiveness criterion. Measures of decision quality were knowledge scores (27 trials), accurate risk perceptions (12 trials), and value congruence with the chosen option (3 trials). PtDAs improved knowledge scores relative to usual care (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 15.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 18.7); detailed PtDAs were somewhat more effective than simpler PtDAs (WMD = 4.6%, 95% CI = 3.0 to 6.2). PtDAs with probabilities improved accurate risk perceptions relative to those without probabilities (relative risk = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9). Relative to simpler PtDAs, detailed PtDAs improved value congruence with the chosen option. Only 2 of 6 IPDAS decision process criteria were measured: feeling informed (15 trials) and feeling clear about values (13 trials). PtDAs improved these process measures relative to usual care (feeling uninformed WMD = —8.4, 95% CI = —11.9 to —4.8; unclear values WMD = —6.3, 95% CI = —10.0 to —2.7). There was no difference in process measures when detailed and simple PtDAs were compared. Conclusions. PtDAs improve decision quality and the decision process's measures of feeling informed and clear about values; however, the size of the effect varies across studies. Several IPDAS decision process measures have not been used. Future trials need to use a minimum data set of IPDAS evaluation measures. The degree of detail PtDAs require for positive effects on IPDAS criteria should be explored.

Objective  To examine men's interpretations of graphical information types viewed in a high‐quality, previously tested videotape decision aid (DA).