Guided versus non-guided digital psychological interventions for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of engagement and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate engagement with and efficacy of guided versus non-guided digital interventions targeting psychological symptoms of cancer via a systematic review of current evidence. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched. Eligible publications were randomised controlled trials of guided or non-guided digital psychological interventions used in cancer settings reporting intervention efficacy and/or engagement. Study methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on outcomes with sufficient data, with sub-group analyses of intervention type and follow-up period. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included. Studies varied by level of guidance, type of technology used, duration, and outcomes assessed. Most studies had a high overall RoB. Meta-analysis indicated that guided interventions significantly reduced distress, anxiety, and fatigue, while non-guided did not. For depression and quality of life, both guided and non-guided interventions produced significant improvements. Guided interventions reported higher levels of intervention engagement than non-guided. CONCLUSIONS: Guided digital psychological interventions were likely to be more effective than non-guided ones for cancer patients, particularly in reducing distress, anxiety, and fatigue. Whilst both types were found to improve depression and life quality, guided interventions were associated with higher patient engagement. These findings suggest digital interventions could supplement traditional cancer care, warranting further research concerning long-term effects and cost-efficiency.

Cancer Care Team's Management of Clinical Alerts Generated by Electronically Collected Patient Reported Outcomes: We Could Do Better.

Electronically administered patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are effective digital health tools for informing clinicians about cancer patients' symptoms and facilitating timely patient-centred care. This paper describes the delivery of healthcare activities supported by the PROMPT-Care model, including ePROMs generated clinical alerts, cancer care team (CCT) response to alerts, and patients' perceptions of the CCT response and ePROMs system. This mixed-methods study includes cancer patients from four cancer therapy centres in New South Wales, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected regarding clinical alert activity, CCT response, and patient perceptions of the CCT responses and ePROMs system. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Of the 328 participants whose care was informed by the digital health tool, 70.8% (n = 233) generated at least one alert during the trial period, with 877 alerts generated in total. Although 43.7% (n = 383) were actioned by the CCT, at least 80% of participants found follow-up CCT phone calls beneficial, with multiple benefits confirmed in interviews. The cancer care delivery arm of the PROMPT-Care trial involving clinical alerts to the CCT was positively perceived by most participants, resulting in a diverse range of benefits. However, further work is required, informed by implementation science, to improve the percentage of actioned clinical alerts.

Encouraging Patients to Ask Questions: Development and Pilot Testing of a Question Prompt List for Patients Undergoing a Biopsy for Suspected Prostate Cancer.

This study assessed the acceptability and feasibility of a question prompt list (QPL) to facilitate informed treatment decision-making in men with suspected localised prostate cancer, which involves values-based choices between options with similar efficacy but different side effects. The QPL was developed through iterative consultation with consumers, clinicians and researchers. Acceptability was assessed using study-specific questions regarding QPL satisfaction and usefulness and qualitative interviews. Feasibility was determined via the proportion of men given the QPL according to medical records and the completion of standardised measures of decisional outcomes. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and univariate statistics. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Fifty-two men consented; 34 provided data for analysis. The QPL recipients reported moderate-high content satisfaction (70.6%) and perceived usefulness in guiding appointments when receiving biopsy results (64.7%). Two main qualitative themes also indicated the QPL acceptability: (1) the freedom to ask-acceptable timing, flexible usage and usefulness of the QPL, and (2) satisfaction with the QPL content. However, only 18.4% of eligible men received the QPL, indicating limited feasibility. The QPL is safe and acceptable, but further research is needed regarding how to facilitate the uptake of the question prompt list in clinical practice.

Role for a Web-Based Intervention to Alleviate Distress in People With Newly Diagnosed Testicular Cancer: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Distress is common immediately after diagnosis of testicular cancer. It has historically been difficult to engage people in care models to alleviate distress because of complex factors, including differential coping strategies and influences of social gender norms. Existing support specifically focuses on long-term survivors of testicular cancer, leaving an unmet need for age-appropriate and sex-sensitized support for individuals with distress shortly after diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a web-based intervention, Nuts & Bolts, designed to provide support and alleviate distress after diagnosis of testicular cancer. METHODS: Using a mixed methods design to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of Nuts & Bolts on distress, we randomly assigned participants with recently diagnosed testicular cancer (1:1) access to Nuts & Bolts at the time of consent (early) or alternatively, 1 week later (day 8; delayed). Participants completed serial questionnaires across a 4- to 5-week period to evaluate levels of distress (measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer [DT]; scored 0-10), anxiety, and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score [HADS]-Anxiety and HADS-Depression; each scored 0-21). The primary end point was change in distress between consent and day 8. Secondary end points of distress, anxiety, and depression were assessed at defined intervals during follow-up. Optional, semistructured interviews occurring after completion of quantitative assessments were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 39 participants were enrolled in this study. The median time from orchidectomy to study consent was 14.8 (range 3-62) days. Moderate or high levels of distress evaluated using DT were reported in 58% (23/39) of participants at consent and reduced to 13% (5/38) after 1 week of observation. Early intervention with Nuts & Bolts did not significantly decrease the mean DT score by day 8 compared with delayed intervention (early: 4.56-2.74 vs delayed: 4.47-2.74; P=.85), who did not yet have access to the website. A higher baseline DT score was significantly predictive of reduction in DT score during this period (P<.001). Median DT, HADS-Anxiety, and HADS-Depression scores reduced between orchidectomy and 3 weeks postoperatively and then remained stable throughout the observation period. Thematic analysis of 16 semistructured interviews revealed 4 key themes, "Nuts & Bolts is a helpful tool," "Maximizing benefits of the website," "Whirlwind of diagnosis and readiness for treatment," and "Primary stressors and worries," as well as multiple subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: Distress is common following the diagnosis of testicular cancer; however, it decreases over time. Nuts & Bolts was considered useful, acceptable, and relevant by individuals diagnosed with testicular cancer, with strong support for the intervention rendered by thematic analyses of semistructured interviews. The best time to introduce support, such as Nuts & Bolts, is yet to be determined; however, it may be most beneficial as soon as testicular cancer is strongly suspected or diagnosed.

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of iConquerFear: a self-guided digital intervention for fear of cancer recurrence.

PURPOSE: Approximately 50% of cancer survivors experience moderate-severe fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Self-guided digital interventions have potential to address the high level of FCR-related unmet needs at scale, but existing digital interventions have demonstrated variable engagement and efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of iConquerFear, a five-module self-guided digital FCR intervention. METHODS: Eligible curatively treated breast cancer survivors were recruited. Participants reporting clinically significant FCR (≥ 13 on the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form; FCRI-SF) were given access to iConquerFear. Feasibility was indicated by > 50% of eligible participants enrolling in iConquerFear and recording moderate (≥ 120 min) or greater usage. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated via changes in self-reported FCR severity, anxiety, depression, intrusions and metacognitions from baseline to immediately and 3 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Fifty-four (83%) of 65 eligible participants enrolled in iConquerFear; six subsequently withdrew. Thirty-nine (83%) participants recorded moderate (n = 24; 120-599 min) or high (n = 15; ≥ 600 min) usage. Engagement levels increased with participant age (p = 0.043), but were lower in participants with higher baseline FCR (p = 0.028). Qualitative feedback indicated engagement was sometimes limited by difficulties with navigation and relating to featured survivors. Participants reported significantly improved FCR (mean reduction (95%CI): baseline to post-intervention - 3.44 (- 5.18, - 1.71), baseline to 3-month follow-up - 4.52 (- 6.25, - 2.78), p = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: iConquerFear is a feasible and potentially efficacious intervention for reducing FCR in breast cancer survivors. Easier navigation and more relatable examples may enhance engagement. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: iConquerFear may help address moderate but burdensome FCR levels in cancer survivors.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care.

BACKGROUND: To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. METHOD: A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of 'organizational readiness for implementing change' (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options. Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes into routine care: an audit of cancer patients from two local health districts in New South Wales to understand their capabilities and preferences.

Objective It has been established that the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care provides significant benefits to patients, providers and health services. However, there are patient-level barriers that must be identified and addressed for the successful implementation of PROMs. This study aimed to understand the capabilities and preferences of our cancer patient population prior to implementation of electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs). Specifically, we conducted a clinic audit to determine the proportion of patients in clinics with access to out-of-clinic internet; those preferring to complete PROMs on paper or via an electronic device; those capable of completing PROMs in English; and those anticipating requiring assistance to complete PROMs. Methods Patients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up care at two Local Health Districts (LHDs) in New South Wales, Australia, completed a questionnaire (audit form) with items about internet and mobile access, communication preferences and assistance needed to complete PROMs. Participant demographic and treatment information were extracted from their electronic medical records. Results Across both LHDs, 637 of 1668 participants (38%) completed the audit forms. Mean participant age was 65 years (range = 23-98), 53% were female, and 92% were outpatients. Patients in the two LHDs differed in their levels of internet and email access, and ability to complete PROMs independently in English, suggesting that some LHD-specific tailoring of implementation strategies is necessary to optimise ePROMs uptake. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of understanding the specific local contexts and patient populations, including potential technology and language barriers, which can influence patient ability to complete ePROMs.

Adapting an integrated care pathway for implementing electronic patient reported outcomes assessment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from a case study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Details of the development and implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) in the context of electronic collection of patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for cancer patients are largely lacking in the literature. This study describes what, why and how decisions were made to adapt and implement an ePROs ICP for patients with lung cancer. METHODS: A consensus process was utilized, with the implementation advisory group including multidisciplinary representation from three participating hospitals, to identify local champions and adapt and incorporate the ePRO ICP into the local contexts. Engagement meetings were documented via meeting transcripts, and detailed notes from October 2019 to November 2020 were content-analysed to identify decision-making themes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; workflows and process maps were reviewed and modified to integrate ePROs. RESULTS: In total, 55 engagement activities were held (24 meetings, 20 workshops 11 educational sessions), with n = 96 staff from multiple disciplines participating in the ePROs implementation through advisory meetings, process mapping, change management and staff education. Decisions were made regarding eligible patient cohorts to include, the process for onboarding patients onto the ePRO system, and follow-up and referral pathways. Rationales for decisions included alignment with existing workflows, utilizing available staff, minimizing staff and patient burden and maximizing patient engagement. CONCLUSION: Existing resources, staff input and technical and logistical reasons often guided the ICP decisions, highlighting the need for in-depth engagement across all stakeholders for optimal implementation of ePRO ICPs. The ePRO implementation required substantial dialogue and systematic resolution to reach agreement on the final processes. Adapting the local ICP through rigorous engagement facilitated the successful implementation of ePROs as business-as-usual at all three cancer centres. Involving all relevant stakeholders is critical to the successful adaptation of ICPs before their introduction into routine care.

Low conflict and high satisfaction: Decisional outcomes after attending a combined clinic to choose between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Decisional conflict and post-treatment decisional regret have been documented in men with localised prostate cancer (LPC). However, there is limited evidence regarding decisional outcomes associated with the choice between robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiotherapy, when both treatment options are available in the public health system. There is increasing support for multidisciplinary approaches to guide men with LPC in their decision-making process. This study assessed decisional outcomes in men deciding between RARP or radiotherapy treatment before and after attending a LPC combined clinic (CC). METHODS: Quantitative longitudinal data were collected from 52 men who attended a LPC CC, where they saw both a urologist and radiation oncologist. Patients completed questionnaires assessing involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret before and after the CC, three months, six months and 12 months post-treatment. Urologists and radiation oncologists also reported their perceptions regarding patients' suitability for, openness to, perceived preferences and appropriateness for each treatment. Data was analysed using paired/independent samples t-tests and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 37, 71%) opted for RARP over radiotherapy (n = 14, 27%); one participant deferred treatment (2%). Urologists and radiation oncologists reported low agreement (κ = 0.26) regarding the most appropriate treatment for each patient. Participants reported a desire for high levels of control over their decision-making process (77.5% patient-led, 22.5% shared) and high levels of decisional satisfaction (M = 4.4, SD = 0.47) after the CC. Decisional conflict levels were significantly reduced (baseline: M = 29.3, SD = 16.9, post-CC: M = 16.3, SD = 11.5; t = 5.37, P < 0.001) after the CC. Mean decisional regret scores were 'mild' at three-months (M = 16.0, SD = 17.5), six-months (M = 18.8, SD = 18.7) and 12-months (M = 18.2, SD = 15.1) post-treatment completion. CONCLUSION: This is the first Australian study to assess decisional outcomes when patients are offered the choice between RARP and radiotherapy in the public health system. A CC seems to support decision-making in men with LPC and positively impact some decisional outcomes. However, larger-scale controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated with Treatments for Testicular Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Testicular cancer and its treatment can have major short- and long-term effects on the health-related quality of life of those affected. This systematic review aims to summarise patient-reported outcome (PRO) data concerning health-related quality of life, functional impacts and common side-effects of treatments for testicular cancer. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline OVID, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Over Time In Oncology (PROMOTION) databases from inception to 25 March 2020, using "testicular cancer" and "PRO" search terms developed in conjunction with a medical librarian. Two authors screened abstracts and full-text articles for studies that reported primary PRO data related to the treatment of testicular cancer including at least 50 participants. We excluded psychosocial data as this was included in our companion review. Data were extracted by three reviewers, and quality was assessed by two reviewers using QUAL-SYST. Studies with a quality of score over 65% were included in our narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 1831 records were identified via our database searches and 41 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 35 included participants who had chemotherapy. Twenty-eight different PRO measures were used across the 41 studies. Of the 41 studies, 29 had quality scores over 65% and were included in our narrative synthesis. We found that chemotherapy was generally associated with a higher side-effect burden than other treatments, and higher burden was associated with higher doses of chemotherapy. Hearing problems, peripheral neuropathy, and Raynaud's phenomena were particularly common side-effects. Problems with sexual functioning were associated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. DISCUSSION: While many studies found that between-treatment differences resolved within the first 12 months since diagnosis, there were many long-term and dose-dependent impacts associated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy across PRO domains. Offering information about these aspects, and information about expected survival outcomes, will help inform, prepare, and empower patients to make decisions about treatment aligned with their preferences and personal situations.

An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies Assessing Anxiety, Depression, Fear of Cancer Recurrence or Psychological Distress in Testicular Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: A diagnosis of testicular cancer (TC) at a relatively young age can have a dramatic impact on the psychological well-being of those affected. The aim of this review was to synthesize recent evidence to provide an updated account of the prevalence, severity and correlates of anxiety, depression, fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and distress in TC survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted from September 2017 until June 2020 using electronic databases including Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Study eligibility and quality were independently assessed by two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to depict the severity (mean/median scores), prevalence (proportions above standard clinical thresholds) and correlates of study outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 988 articles were identified for screening after duplicate removal. Fifty-six full-text articles were screened, and eight articles met the inclusion criteria. The reported prevalence of the outcomes varied across studies (clinical levels of anxiety ranged from 6.9% to 21.1%, depression varied from 4.7% to 7%, distress was found between 25% and 41.4%, prevalence of FCR was not reported). Few studies compared TC survivors with other populations. Correlates of poorer psychological outcomes included younger age, relationship status, employment status, poorer sexual functioning, impaired masculinity and coping strategies. CONCLUSION: Anxiety seems to be the most common issue for TC survivors. Men who are single or unemployed appear most at risk of poorer psychological outcomes, which seem associated with impaired masculinity and sexual function. More research is needed to identify TC survivors most likely to need one of the increasing number of psychological interventions being developed for TC survivors.

Revisiting Photovoice: Perceptions of Dementia Among Researchers With Intellectual Disability.

There is limited global evidence exploring perceptions of dementia among people with intellectual disabilities. This article presents findings from the first known study where an inclusive research team, including members with intellectual disability, used photovoice methodology to visually represent views of people with intellectual disabilities and dementia. Drawing on Freire's empowerment pedagogy, the study aims were consistent with global photovoice aims: enabling people to visually record critical dialogue about dementia through photography and social change. We investigated the benefits and challenges of photovoice methodology with this population and sought to identify perspectives of dementia from people with intellectual disabilities. Data collected identified issues such as peers "disappearing" and the importance of maintaining friendship as dementia progressed. Although reaching policymakers is a key aim of photovoice, this may not always be achievable, suggesting that revisiting Freire's original methodological aims may lead to improved outcomes in co-produced research with marginalized groups.

Robot or radiation? A qualitative study of the decision support needs of men with localised prostate cancer choosing between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how best to support men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer to decide which treatment option best suits their needs, when robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy are equally appropriate to offer them. METHODS: Twenty-five men recently diagnosed with localised prostate cancer completed semi-structured interviews asking about information/decision-making needs before and/or after attending a combined clinic in which they consulted a urologist and a radiation oncologist regarding treatment options. Data was transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Most men preferred robotic prostatectomy pre-combined clinic and chose it afterwards. The thematic analysis revealed four themes: 1) trust in clinicians and the information they provide is critical for treatment choice, 2) perceived fit between treatment characteristics and personal circumstances, 3) additional considerations: specific side effects, socio-emotional and financial factors, and 4) need for tailored information delivery. Robotic prostatectomy was mistakenly believed to provide a more definitive cure than radiotherapy, which was seen as having a lesser lifestyle impact. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment choice is largely dependent on clinicians' (mainly urologists') recommendations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients need more balanced information about alternatives to robotic prostatectomy earlier in the treatment decision-making process. Referral to a radiation oncologist or combined clinic shortly after diagnosis is recommended.

Is quality of life a suitable measure of patient decision aid effectiveness? Sub-analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.

PURPOSE: Patient decision-aids (PtDAs) help patients make informed treatment decisions incorporating their values. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is sometimes an outcome of PtDA effectiveness trials, but its suitability for this purpose is unclear. We sought to provide insights into this question by critically appraising how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDA effectiveness measure and report HRQOL. METHODS: We conducted a sub-analysis of RCTs included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs. Trials assessing HRQOL at baseline and post-PtDA, and comparing PtDA with comparison groups were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Analysis was descriptive. RESULTS: Of 105 RCTs, 11 were eligible for inclusion. Patients randomized to PtDAs did not report better HRQOL than those randomized to usual care. While all 11 RCTs adequately described baseline sample characteristics and reported HRQOL results for study groups, few stated a priori HRQOL expectations or hypotheses (36%); made a link between HRQOL and the decision (18%); provided a rationale or justification for HRQOL assessment (18%); provided reason for choice of HRQOL assessment time-points (9%); or adjusted p-values for multiple HRQOL domains and time-points (0%). DISCUSSION: PtDAs did not conclusively impact HRQOL. If this holds generally, then HRQOL is an uninformative endpoint for PtDA effectiveness trials. When planning trials of PtDAs, investigators considering HRQOL endpoints should consider whether and why their PtDA is likely to affect HRQOL in their context, and if so, which specific aspect(s) of HRQOL and at which time-point(s), and ensure HRQOL is assessed accordingly.

Prostatectomy versus radiotherapy for early-stage prostate cancer (PREPaRE) study: protocol for a mixed-methods study of treatment decision-making in men with localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men diagnosed with localised prostate cancer (LPC) wanting curative treatment face a highly preference-sensitive choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy, which offer similar cure rates but different side effects. This study aims to determine the information, decision-making needs and preferences of men with LPC choosing between robotic prostatectomy and standard external beam or stereotactic radiotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be conducted at a large public teaching hospital in Australia offering the choice between robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy from early 2017. Men (20-30) diagnosed with LPC who want curative treatment and meet criteria for either treatment will be invited to participate. In this mixed-methods study, patients will complete semistructured interviews before and after attending a combined clinic in which they consult a urologist and a radiation oncologist regarding treatment and four questionnaires (one before treatment decision-making and three after) assessing demographic and clinical characteristics, involvement in decision-making, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret. Combined clinic consultations will also be audio-recorded and clinicians will report their perceptions regarding patients' suitability for, openness to and preferences for each treatment. Qualitative data will be transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed and descriptive statistical analyses will explore quantitative decision-making outcomes, with comparison according to treatment choice. DISCUSSION: Results from this study will inform how to best support men diagnosed with LPC deciding which curative treatment option best suits their needs and may identify the need for and content required in a decision aid to support these men. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants will provide written informed consent. Data will be rigorously managed in accordance with national legislation. Results will be disseminated via presentations to both scientific and layperson audiences and publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals.