Taking shared decision making for prostate cancer to the next level: Requirements for a Dutch treatment decision aid with personalized risks on side effects.

Laura M J Hochstenbach, Domino Determann, Rianne R R Fijten, Esther J Bloemen-van Gurp, Ren��e Verwey
Author Information
  1. Laura M J Hochstenbach: Center of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, the Netherlands.
  2. Domino Determann: PATIENT+, Zeestraat 76, 2518 AD Den Haag, the Netherlands.
  3. Rianne R R Fijten: Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands.
  4. Esther J Bloemen-van Gurp: Center of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, the Netherlands.
  5. Ren��e Verwey: Center of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, the Netherlands.

Abstract

Background: Different curative treatment modalities need to be considered in case of localized prostate cancer, all comparable in terms of survival and recurrence though different in side effects. To better inform patients and support shared decision making, the development of a web-based patient decision aid including personalized risk information was proposed. This paper reports on requirements in terms of content of information, visualization of risk profiles, and use in practice.
Methods: Based on a Dutch 10-step guide about the setup of a decision aid next to a practice guideline, an iterative and co-creative design process was followed. In collaboration with various groups of experts (health professionals, usability and linguistic experts, patients and the general public), research and development activities were continuously alternated.
Results: Content requirements focused on presenting information only about conventional treatments and main side effects; based on risk group; and including clear explanations about personalized risks. Visual requirements involved presenting general and personalized risks separately; through bar charts or icon arrays; and along with numbers or words, and legends. Organizational requirements included integration into local clinical pathways; agreement about information input and output; and focus on patients' numeracy and graph literacy skills.
Conclusions: The iterative and co-creative development process was challenging, though extremely valuable. The translation of requirements resulted in a decision aid about four conventional treatment options, including general or personalized risks for erection, urinary and intestinal problems that are communicated with icon arrays and numbers. Future implementation and validation studies need to inform about use and value in practice.

Keywords

References

  1. Urol Oncol. 2019 Jul;37(7):409-429 [PMID: 31053529]
  2. Hum Factors. 2017 Jun;59(4):582-627 [PMID: 28192674]
  3. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Winter;23(1):131-7 [PMID: 17234027]
  4. PLoS One. 2016 Apr 06;11(4):e0152999 [PMID: 27050101]
  5. BMJ. 2012 Jan 27;344:e256 [PMID: 22286508]
  6. PLoS One. 2023 Mar 3;18(3):e0276815 [PMID: 36867616]
  7. Psychooncology. 2016 Jun;25(6):633-40 [PMID: 26403417]
  8. Health Informatics J. 2019 Dec;25(4):1498-1510 [PMID: 29857789]
  9. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431 [PMID: 28402085]
  10. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Oct 27;20(1):277 [PMID: 33109175]
  11. J Clin Nurs. 2016 Apr;25(7-8):1131-44 [PMID: 26880526]
  12. J Urol. 2015 Nov;194(5):1247-52 [PMID: 26055824]
  13. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88 [PMID: 16204405]
  14. BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417 [PMID: 16908462]
  15. Diagn Progn Res. 2018 Dec 18;2:23 [PMID: 31093570]
  16. PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705 [PMID: 19259269]
  17. Cancer Nurs. 2020 Jan/Feb;43(1):E10-E21 [PMID: 30312191]
  18. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Nov-Dec;59(6):379-90 [PMID: 19841280]
  19. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Dec 31;21(1):374 [PMID: 34972513]
  20. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S14 [PMID: 24625083]
  21. Health Informatics J. 2020 Jun;26(2):1194-1207 [PMID: 31566466]
  22. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 May-Jun;65(3):239-51 [PMID: 25772796]
  23. BJU Int. 2018 Mar;121(3):405-414 [PMID: 28960827]
  24. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2:S2 [PMID: 24625093]
  25. BMJ. 2014 May 14;348:g3178 [PMID: 25134115]
  26. Urol Oncol. 2020 Sep;38(9):735.e17-735.e25 [PMID: 32680820]
  27. BJU Int. 2013 Apr;111(4):564-73 [PMID: 22882966]
  28. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526-35 [PMID: 18752915]
  29. BMJ Open. 2013 Sep 13;3(9):e003226 [PMID: 24038007]
  30. Swiss Med Wkly. 2018 Feb 23;148:w14584 [PMID: 29473938]
  31. J Urol. 2018 Mar;199(3):683-690 [PMID: 29203269]
  32. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 05;13(4):e111 [PMID: 22155738]
  33. Diagn Progn Res. 2021 Jan 11;5(1):1 [PMID: 33431065]
  34. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Dec;69(1-3):140-4 [PMID: 17942271]
  35. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jul 11;19(1):130 [PMID: 31296199]
  36. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 May;70(5):722-6 [PMID: 21257615]
  37. Health Informatics J. 2019 Sep;25(3):701-714 [PMID: 28747076]
  38. Cancer. 2006 May 1;106(9):1865-74 [PMID: 16568450]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0decisionaidpersonalizedrequirementsinformationriskstreatmentcancersideeffectsmakingdevelopmentincludingriskpracticegeneralneedprostatetermsthoughinformpatientsshareduseDutchnextiterativeco-creativedesignprocessexpertspresentingconventionaliconarraysnumbersBackground:Differentcurativemodalitiesconsideredcaselocalizedcomparablesurvivalrecurrencedifferentbettersupportweb-basedpatientproposedpaperreportscontentvisualizationprofilesMethods:Based10-stepguidesetupguidelinefollowedcollaborationvariousgroupshealthprofessionalsusabilitylinguisticpublicresearchactivitiescontinuouslyalternatedResults:ContentfocusedtreatmentsmainbasedgroupclearexplanationsVisualinvolvedseparatelybarchartsalongwordslegendsOrganizationalincludedintegrationlocalclinicalpathwaysagreementinputoutputfocuspatients'numeracygraphliteracyskillsConclusions:challengingextremelyvaluabletranslationresultedfouroptionserectionurinaryintestinalproblemscommunicatedFutureimplementationvalidationstudiesvalueTakinglevel:RequirementsPatientPersonalizedmedicineProstateSharedUsercentered

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)