Patient Perspectives on a Patient-Facing Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development. AIM: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach. METHODS: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider-facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients' thoughts on and desires for a patient-facing SDM tool. RESULTS: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient-facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient-provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.

To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct: Piloting a Vietnamese and Arabic Breast Reconstruction Decision Aid in Australia.

Currently, there are no resources to support culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women with breast cancer to make decisions about undergoing breast reconstruction (BR). This study evaluated the usability and acceptability of decision aids (DAs) for Vietnamese- and Arabic-speaking women. This two-phase qualitative recruited Vietnamese- (Phase 1) and Arabic-speaking (Phase 2) adult (age ≥ 18 years) women who were diagnosed with breast cancer and could read Vietnamese/Arabic. Women participated in either think-aloud telephone interviews (Phase 1) or semi-structured telephone interviews (Phase 2) and provided feedback on the DA. Interviews were audio-recorded, translated, and transcribed from Vietnamese/Arabic to English, and inductive thematic analysis was undertaken. Additionally, Arabic-speaking women completed the Preparation for Decision Making (PrepDM) scale in Round 2. Twenty-five women were recruited in two phases (Phase 1: Vietnamese-speaking women, n = 14; Phase 2: Arabic-speaking, n = 11). Three themes were developed in Phase 1: (1) DA content and reception; (2) linguistic attributes and cultural appropriateness; and (3) factors that improve the DAs' impact. Three themes were developed in Phase 2: (1) varying perceptions of DA content; (2) linguistic and cultural suitability of information; and (3) impact of DA on decision making. Women from both phases identified areas for improvement: minimising the use of medical terminology, considering the cultural taboos associated with the word 'breast', and addressing remaining information gaps. Both language DAs were generally perceived as acceptable and useful in providing information about BR options and prompting women's reflections about the suitability of BR as part of their treatment. The mean PrepDM score for Arabic-speaking women in Round 2 was 4.8/5 (SD = 0.3). Further work is needed to ensure that culturally adapted DAs take into account the myriad of information needs and health literacy levels. The key role of healthcare professionals in shared decision making among CALD populations should also be considered.

Development of Promising Interventions to Improve Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in a School-Based Program in Quebec, Canada: Results From a Formative Evaluation Using a Mixed Methods Design.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of school-based human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs, disparities in vaccine coverage persist. Barriers to HPV vaccine acceptance and uptake include parental attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, and system-level barriers. A total of 3 interventions were developed to address these barriers: an in-person presentation by school nurses, an email reminder with a web-based information and decision aid tool, and a telephone reminder using motivational interviewing (MI) techniques. OBJECTIVE: Here we report on the development and formative evaluation of interventions to improve HPV vaccine acceptance and uptake among grade 4 students' parents in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: In the summer of 2019, we conducted a formative evaluation of the interventions to assess the interventions' relevance, content, and format and to identify any unmet needs. We conducted 3 focus group discussions with parents of grade 3 students and nurses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for thematic content using NVivo software (Lumivero). Nurses received training on MI techniques and we evaluated the effect on nurses' knowledge and skills using a pre-post questionnaire. Descriptive quantitative analyses were carried out on data from questionnaires relating to the training. Comparisons were made using the proportions of the results. Finally, we developed a patient decision aid using an iterative, user-centered design process. The iterative refinement process involved feedback from parents, nurses, and experts to ensure the tool's relevance and effectiveness. The evaluation protocol and data collection tools were approved by the CHU (Centre Hospitalier Universitaire) de Québec Research Ethics Committee (MP-20-2019-4655, May 16, 2019). RESULTS: The data collection was conducted from April 2019 to March 2021. Following feedback (n=28) from the 3 focus group discussions in June 2019, several changes were made to the in-person presentation intervention. Experts (n=27) and school nurses (n=29) recruited for the project appreciated the visual and simplified information on vaccination in it. The results of the MI training for school nurses conducted in August 2019 demonstrated an increase in the skills and knowledge of nurses (n=29). School nurses who took the web-based course (n=24) filled out a pretest and posttest questionnaire to evaluate their learning. The rating increased by 19% between the pretest and posttest questionnaires. Several changes were made between the first draft of the web-based decision-aid tool and the final version during the summer of 2019 after an expert consultation of experts (n=3), focus group participants (n=28), and parents in the iterative process (n=5). More information about HPV and vaccines was added, and users could click if more detail is desired. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and pilot-tested 3 interventions using an iterative process. The interventions were perceived as potentially effective to increase parents' knowledge and positive attitudes toward HPV vaccination, and ultimately, vaccine acceptance. Future research will assess the effectiveness of these interventions on a larger scale.

Improving sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.

Objective: To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review. Results: Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users. Conclusion: We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly. Innovation: This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.

Discordant Care and Decision Quality: Patients' Reasons for Not Receiving Their Initial Test of Choice in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Concordance between a person's values and the test or treatment they ultimately receive is widely considered to be an essential outcome for good decision quality. There is little research, however, on why patients receive "discordant" care. A large, randomized trial of decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening provided an opportunity to assess why some patients received a different test than the one they preferred at an earlier time point. METHODS: Of 688 patients who participated in the trial, 43 received a different CRC screening test than the one they selected after viewing a decision aid 6 mo prior. These patients answered 2 brief, open-ended questions about the reasons for this discordance. The research team analyzed their answers using qualitative description. RESULTS: Patient responses reflected 6 major categories: barriers or risks of initially favored test, benefits of alternative test, costs or health insurance coverage, discussion with family or friends, provider factors or recommendation, and health issues. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the patients' explanations fit well with the informed concordance approach, which infers poor decision quality from the existence of discordant care, since in these cases it appears that the patient's values and preferences were not adequately respected. Other statements suggest that the patient had an informed rationale for changing their mind about which test to undergo. These cases may reflect high-quality decision making, despite the existence of discordance as measured in the trial. This analysis highlights a major challenge to a popular approach for assessing decision quality, the difficulty of normatively assessing the quality of decision making when apparent discordant care has been provided, and the need to assess patient values and preference over time. HIGHLIGHTS: Value-choice concordance is an accepted measure for assessing decision quality in decision aid trials, but greater exploration of apparently discordant care challenges key assumptions of this method; this study provides evidence that discordance as typically measured may not always reflect low-quality patient decision making.Researchers evaluating decision aids and assessing decision quality should consider the use of qualitative methods to supplement measures of decision quality and consider assessing patient preferences at multiple time points.

Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Distal Radius Fractures in Patients aged ≥65 years.

PURPOSE: The ideal management of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in patients aged 65 years and older is debated. Acknowledging the evidence that both nonsurgical and surgical treatment yield similar outcomes one year after injury, a patient decision aid (PDA) could facilitate patient engagement in treatment decision-making. The purpose of this study was to develop a PDA to guide patients in the treatment of DRFs in patients ≥65 years of age. METHODS: The DRF PDA was developed using an established decision sciences framework. The PDA included an overview of DRFs, treatment options (casting vs surgery), risk/benefits, and a values clarification section. During the development phase, hand surgeons and patients reviewed the PDA; then, semistructured interviews were performed with participants to elicit feedback. RESULTS: Eleven patients and 11 hand surgeons participated in the study. All patients found the PDA useful and almost all stated it would make the treatment decision easier. Most patients believed that there was enough information in the PDA, but one desired more information about surgical risks. Almost all surgeons stated the PDA would be easy for patients to use and understand, and approximately half believed that it would help patients make a more informed decision. Most surgeons expressed that the PDA would complement their usual approach to counseling patients, but some noted it would involve changes to their workflow. Most participants believed the information presented was unbiased, but one patient thought it was biased toward surgery, whereas a few surgeons believed that it was biased toward nonsurgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: All patients expressed that the PDA was informative, comprehensive, and easy to understand and would be helpful if they were deciding about DRF treatment. Surgeons believed that patients would find the PDA easy to use and understand, but some had concerns about incorporating it into their clinic workflow. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A decision aid for the treatment of DRFs in patients aged ≥65 years can be used to engage patients in the shared decision-making process.

A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica. OUTCOME MEASURES: Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument). METHODS: The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round. RESULTS: As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Development of a web-based patient decision aid for myopia laser correction method.

BACKGROUND: In the context of healthcare centered on the patient, Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) acts as an essential instrument, promoting shared decision-making (SDM). Considering the prevalent occurrence of myopia, the objective of this study is to furnish exhaustive and easily comprehensible information to assist patients in making well-informed decisions about their options for myopia laser correction. METHOD: The research team developed a decision guide for myopia patients considering laser correction, aiming to facilitate informed decisions. The study followed the first four stages of the IPDAS process model: "scope/scoping," "design," "prototype development," and "alpha testing." Ten semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 6) and corneal specialist ophthalmologists (n = 4) were conducted to understand the challenges in selecting a laser correction method. Online meetings with 4 corneal specialists were held to discuss challenging cases. A comparison table of harms and benefits was created. The initial prototype was developed and uploaded on the internet portal. User feedback on software and text aspects was incorporated into the final web software, which was reviewed by a health education expert for user-friendliness and effectiveness. RESULT: Educational needs assessment revealed concerns such as pain, daily life activities, return to work, the potential need for glasses ('number return'), eye prescription stability, and possible complications. These shaped the decision aid tool's content. Expert consensus was achieved in several areas, with some items added or extended. In areas lacking consensus, comments were added for clarity. Five clients assessed the web app (PDAIN), rating it 46/50 in user-centricity, 47/50 in usability, and 45/50 in accuracy and reliability, totaling 138/150. Post-piloting, software errors were documented and rectified. During the trial phase, five myopic users interacted with the software, leading to modifications. User feedback indicated the tool effectively enhanced understanding and influenced decision-making. CONCLUSION: PDAIN, serves as a facilitative tool in the process of selecting a corneal laser correction method for myopic patients. It enabling Nearsighted patients to make informed decisions.

Exploring Cultural and Religious Effects on HPV Vaccination Decision Making Using a Web-Based Decision Aid: A Quasi-experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) poses a significant public health concern, as it is linked to various serious health conditions such as cancer and genital warts. Despite the vaccine's safety, efficacy, and availability through national school programs, HPV vaccination rates remain low in Israel, particularly within the ultra-Orthodox community due to religious and cultural barriers. Decision aids have shown promise in facilitating shared decision making and promoting informed choices in health care. This study aimed to assess the impact of a novel Web-based decision aid on HPV vaccination intentions, knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and decisional conflict among Israeli parents and young adults, with a specific focus on exploring differences between religious groups. METHODS: Two Web-based decision aids were developed for parents of children aged 10 to 17 y (n = 120) and young adults aged 18 to 26 y (n = 160). A quasi-experimental study was conducted among Hebrew-speaking parents and young adults eligible for HPV vaccination. Participants completed pre- and postintervention questionnaires assessing vaccination intentions, knowledge about HPV, decision self-efficacy, and decisional conflict. RESULTS: The decision aid significantly improved intentions toward HPV vaccination among most religious groups, except the Jewish ultra-Orthodox community. Ultra-Orthodox participants exhibited reluctance to vaccinate themselves or their children (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23, P < 0.001 for parents' group; OR = 0.43, P < 0.001 for young adults' group). Parental preference for vaccinating girls over boys (OR = 2.66, P < 0.001) and increased inclination for vaccination among Muslim-Arabs were observed (OR = 3.12, P < 0.001). Knowledge levels improved among ultra-Orthodox participants but not decisional conflict and self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The Web-based decision aid positively influenced the quality of HPV vaccination decision making among various religious groups in Israel, except for the ultra-Orthodox community. Culturally tailored approaches that address specific community concerns are essential for informed decision making. HIGHLIGHTS: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates in Israel are substantially lower than those of other routine vaccinations, particularly among religious and ultra-Orthodox communities, largely due to sociocultural beliefs and misinformation.A newly developed Web-based decision aid was implemented in a study involving parents and young adults to evaluate its impact on vaccination intent, knowledge about HPV, decision self-efficacy, and decisional conflict.While the decision aid significantly enhanced vaccination intention, knowledge, and perceived behavioral control among various religious groups, it did not yield the same outcomes within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.This study highlights the vital role of cultural adaptation in HPV vaccine decision aids within Israel, revealing significant disparities in vaccination perceptions and decisions among diverse religious and cultural groups.

Impact of Advance Care Planning Support on Patients Treated in the Intensive Care Unit After High-Risk Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Efforts to enhance support for advance care planning (ACP) in patients requiring emergency and intensive care are currently being explored. In addition, few studies have reported the effects and impact of support for these patients and their families. The researcher developed a patient decision aid to initiate support for ACP for patients who plan to enter the intensive care unit after surgery and their families. This study aimed to provide ACP support to patients before high-risk surgery and to determine its impact. METHODS: The study design was qualitative. The participants included 10 patients who were scheduled to be admitted to the intensive care unit after high-risk surgery at an acute-care hospital in Japan, and the patients' families. The researcher used decision aids to implement ACP support before the patients were admitted. Participants were interviewed in a semi-structured manner regarding their experiences and the impact of receiving ACP support after discharge. Interviews were recorded using an integrated circuit recorder, followed by verbatim transcripts. The analysis was performed in a qualitative descriptive manner. RESULTS: ACP support prior to treatment initiation led patients to think about life-sustaining treatments and consider ideal living. By understanding the risks of treatment, patients can calmly assume complications and discuss their mortality and life after surgery. Patients perceived receiving ACP support as a valuable benefit prior to undergoing treatment in the intensive care unit. After discharge, they wanted to promote shared decision-making among their physicians. On the other hand, family members were more anxious about ACP topics than patients. In addition, the patients and their families felt that it was difficult to discuss their thoughts and wishes regarding ACP before surgery. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that pretreatment ACP support could serve as an introductory phase for patients anticipating the need for intensive care, allowing them to contemplate their preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment. However, it is difficult for patients and their family members to openly discuss their thoughts on life-sustaining treatment, even if they are aware of the risk of a sudden crisis. Therefore, when patients and their families discuss ACP, the inclusion of healthcare coaching and counseling may be more effective. These measures of ACP support could add to increased family discussions, concordance, and shared decision-making with physicians.

Have a vital end-user been overlooked? Developing a shared decision intervention for patients with potential pancreatic cancer regarding the choice of surgery.

Objective: To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment. Methods: Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (n = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (n = 4) and surgeons (n = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale. Results: Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA. Conclusion: The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic. Innovation: This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.

Predictors of knowledge and knowledge gain after decision aid use among women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors contributing to baseline knowledge in women with BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs) and knowledge gain after decision aid (DA) use. METHODS: Women with PVs in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes were randomly assigned to an intervention group (IG) receiving DAs or a control group (CG). Of the total sample, 417 completed the baseline survey and were included in this analysis. Two multiple regression analyses were conducted: baseline data on socio-demographic, medical, decision-related and psychological variables were used to identify predictors for (1) baseline knowledge within the total group and (2) knowledge gain within the IG after DA use three months post study inclusion. RESULTS: At baseline, higher education status, no breast cancer history, and lower decisional conflict related to higher knowledge within the total group. After DA use within the IG, higher baseline scores for decisional conflict predicted higher knowledge gain, and higher baseline scores for depression and intrusion predicted lower knowledge gain. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified predictors of baseline knowledge and knowledge gain after DA use in women with BRCA1/2 PVs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Awareness of facilitating and hindering factors on these women's knowledge can improve understanding of their health literacy and enable further targeted support interventions.

Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention.

BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that people aged 50-70 years consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher before an appointment in general practice using a decision aid presenting the benefits and harms of taking low-dose aspirin compared with a general CRC prevention brochure on patients' informed decision making and low-dose aspirin use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-70 years attending a GP. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk while control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. Self-reported co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals making informed choices about taking aspirin at 1 month and on low-dose aspirin uptake at 6 months, respectively. The intervention effect was estimated using a generalised linear model and reported with Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. RESULTS: A total of 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (n = 129 intervention; n = 132 control). Of these participants, 17.7% (n = 20/113) in the intervention group and 7.6% (n = 9/118) in the control group reported making an informed choice about taking aspirin at 1 month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI = 0.29 to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions (odds ratio [OR] 2.47, 97.5% CI = 0.94 to 6.52, P = 0.074). The proportions of individuals who reported taking aspirin at 6 months were 10.2% (n = 12/118) of the intervention group versus 13.8% (n = 16/116) of the control group, an estimated between-arm difference of -4.0% (95% CI = -13.5 to 5.5; OR 0.68 [97.5% CI = 0.27 to 1.70, P = 0.692]). CONCLUSION: The decision aid improved informed decision making but this did not translate into long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk. In future research, decision aids should be delivered alongside various implementation strategies.

Codesign of Lynch ChoicesTM : Using implementation science to create a clinically deliverable patient decision support website to transform cancer genetics care pathways.

BACKGROUND: Resources including Patient Decision Aids (PtDA) are useful and valued by patients and clinicians to provide information and complement shared decision-making. Despite their promise, few PtDA exist for patients with genetic cancer susceptibility facing difficult decisions about risk management. We aimed to fill this gap, partnering with patients to codesign Lynch ChoicesTM , a PtDA website for families with Lynch Syndrome. In addition to a Patient Reference Panel, we purposively invited an international stakeholder panel including charities, public bodies, clinical and academic experts. Implementation strategies and frameworks were employed to optimise translation of research findings to improve care. METHODS: Patient/stakeholder suggestions were incorporated in a transparent Table of Changes and prioritised using the Person-Based Approach throughout planning and codesign of Lynch ChoicesTM . An interactive stakeholder meeting was convened to identify barriers and facilitators to clinical implementation of the PtDA. RESULTS: Patient and stakeholder partnerships drove the direction of the research throughout codesign, resulting in several iterative refinements to the PtDA prior to roll out including the addition of illustrations/videos, clearer presentation of cancer risks and increased accessibility for lower literacy. Barriers and facilitators identified from stakeholders were used to create an implementation process map. CONCLUSIONS: Creating an effective, engaging PtDA is not enough. Systematic uptake in real world clinical practice, with its resource limitations, is needed to optimise benefit to patients and clinicians. Assessment of speed and breadth of dissemination and usage will be collected to further evidence the benefit of embedding implementation science methods from the outset to translate research findings into clinical practice.

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision. METHODS: The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict. DISCUSSION: This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

The Development and Testing of a Patient Decision Aid for Individuals with Homologous Recombinant Proficient Ovarian Cancer Who Are Considering Niraparib Maintenance Therapy.

New treatments for ovarian cancer are available that require trade-offs between progression-free survival and quality of life. The aim of this study was to develop a decision aid for patients with homologous recombinant proficient (HRP) tumors, as the benefit-harm ratio of niraparib needs consideration. This decision aid was created with a systematic and iterative development process based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. The decision aid was user-tested for acceptability, usability, and comprehensibility using a survey completed by a sample of patients with ovarian cancer and oncologists. This decision aid follows the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria in its development. User-test respondents (n = 13 patients; 13 physicians) reported that the decision aid used language that was easy to follow (69% patients; 85% physicians), was an appropriate length (69% patients; 62% physicians) and provided the right amount of information (54% patients; 54% physicians). Most respondents (92% patients; 62% physicians) would recommend this decision aid for HRP patients considering niraparib. This is the first decision aid for patients with HRP ovarian cancers who are considering niraparib maintenance therapy. It is available on-line and is being further evaluated in a pragmatic clinical trial in Saskatchewan.

Online decision aid for patients with prostate cancer evaluated by 11 290 patients and 91 urologists in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the nationwide online decision aid 'Entscheidungshilfe Prostatakrebs' (established in 2016, >11.000 users and 60 new users/week) for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), from the perspective of patients and urologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To provide personalised information, the tool collects most of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, personal preferences, psychological features, and a validated rating of the tool. To evaluate urologists' opinions, we developed a structured two-page questionnaire. All data were collected anonymously. RESULTS: From June 2016 to December 2020, 11 290 patients used the PCa decision aid. Their median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 67 (61-72) years. The median (IQR) time from initial diagnosis to using the tool was 4 (3-7) weeks. In all, 87.7% of users reported high satisfaction. In a multivariable model, predictors for considering observation were higher knowledge, using the decision aid alone, lower oncological risk, normal erectile function, and respective personal preferences. Of 194 urologists, 91 (47%) had implemented the decision aid in their clinical practice. The urologists' mean (SD) satisfaction score (1 'very good'; 6 'unsatisfactory') with it was 1.45 (0.55), and 92% recommended it. Half of the urologists reported time savings. CONCLUSION: Patients and urologists report a very high level of acceptance and satisfaction with this online tool. It offers advantages in shared decision-making and time efficiency. The usage of the decision aid might improve the adoption of active surveillance and watchful waiting when indicated.

Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds.

BACKGROUND: To inform the development of an online tool to be potentially used in shared decision-making about breast cancer screening, French women were questioned about participation in breast cancer screening, the health professional's role, and their perceptions of the proposed tool. METHODS: We organised focus group discussions with 55 French women. Two different strategies were used to recruit women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds. We applied both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct a thematic analysis of the discussions. We analysed the responses by using the main determinants from different health behaviour models and compared the two groups. RESULTS: Independently of socioeconomic status, the most important determinant for a woman's participation in breast cancer screening was the perceived severity of breast cancer and the perceived benefits of its early detection by screening. Cues to action reported by both groups were invitation letters; recommendations by health professionals, or group/community activities and public events were reported by women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds, respectively. Among other positive determinants, women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported making informed decisions and receiving peer support whereas women from low socioeconomic backgrounds reported community empowerment through group/community events. Fear of cancer was reported as a barrier in both groups. Among other barriers, language issues were reported only by women from low socioeconomic backgrounds; women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported breast cancer screening-related risks other than overdiagnosis and/or overtreatment. Barriers to accessing the online tool to be developed were mainly reported by women from high socioeconomic backgrounds. CONCLUSION: Limitations in implementing shared decision-making for women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were highlighted. An online tool that is suitable for all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, would provide "on-demand" reliable and tailored information about breast cancer screening and improve access to health professionals and social exchanges.

Exploring patient perspectives on EQ-5D-5L data visualization within an individualized decision aid for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids can help patients set realistic expectations. In this study, we explored alternative presentations to visualise patient-reported outcomes (EQ-5D-5L) data within an online, individualized patient decision aid for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) that, in part, generates individualized comparisons based on age, sex and body mass index, to enhance usability prior to implementation into routine clinical practice. METHODS: We used data visualization techniques to modify the presentation of EQ-5D-5L outcomes data within the decision aid. The EQ-5D-5L data was divided into two parts allowing patients to compare themselves to similar individuals (1) pre-surgery and (2) 1-year post-surgery. We created 2 versions for each part and sought patient feedback on comprehension, usefulness, and visual appeal. Patients from an urban orthopedic clinic were recruited and their ratings and comments were recorded using a researcher-administered checklist. Data were managed using Microsoft Excel, R version 3.6.1 and ATLAS.ti V8 and analyzed using descriptive statistics and directed content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 24 and 25 patients participated in Parts 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, there was a slight preference for Version 1 in Part 1 (58.3%) and Version 2 in Part 2 (64%). Most participants demonstrated adequate comprehension for all versions (range 50-72%) and commented that the instructions were clear. While 50-60% of participants rated the content as useful, including knowing the possible outcomes of surgery, some participants found the information interesting only, were unsure how to use the information, or did not find it useful because they had already decided on a treatment. Participants rated visual appeal for all versions favorably but suggested improvements for readability, mainly larger font and image sizes and enhanced contrast between elements. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, we will produce an enhanced presentation of EQ-5D-5L data within the decision aid. These improvements, along with further usability testing of the entire decision aid, will be made before implementation of the decision aid in routine clinical practice. Our results on patients' perspectives on the presentation of EQ-5D-5L data to support decision making for TKA treatments contributes to the knowledge on EQ-5D-5L applications within healthcare systems for clinical care.

Development of an Electronic Decision Aid Tool to Facilitate Mainstream Genetic Testing in Ovarian Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Multigene panel testing is an important component of cancer treatment plans and risk assessment, but there are many different panel options and choosing the most appropriate panel can be challenging for health care providers and patients. Electronic tools have been proposed to help patients make informed decisions about which gene panel to choose by considering their preferences and priorities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic decision aid (DA) tool was developed in line with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards collaboration. The multidisciplinary project team collaborated with an external health care communications agency and the MGH Cancer Center Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) to develop the DA. Surveys of genetic counselors and patients were used to scope the content, and alpha testing was used to refine the design and content. RESULTS: Surveys of genetic counselors (n = 12) and patients (n = 228) identified common themes in discussing panel size and strategies for helping patients decide between panels and in identifying confusing terms for patients and distribution of patients' choices. The DA, organized into 2 major sections, provides educational text, graphics, and videos to guide patients through the decision-making process. Alpha testing feedback from the PFAC (n = 4), genetic counselors (n = 3) and a group of lay people (n = 8) identified areas to improve navigation, simplify wording, and improve layout. CONCLUSION: The DA developed in this study has the potential to facilitate informed decision-making by patients regarding cancer genetic testing. The distinctive feature of this DA is that it addresses the specific question of which multigene panel may be most suitable for the patient. Its acceptability and effectiveness will be evaluated in future studies.