A Patient Decision Aid for Men With Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Case Study of Natural Implementation Approaches.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple options for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) help empower individuals and reduce unwarranted practice variation, but few are used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: We compared 2 programs implementing PtDAs for men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: This was a comparative case study. Case 1 was a hospital prostate pathway and case 2 was a provincial prostate pathway with 2 locations (2a, 2b). Nurses provided the men with PtDAs and answered questions. Data sources were as follows: (a) 2 years administrative data for men with localized prostate cancer, (b) clinicians survey and interviews, and (c) patients/spouses interviews. Analysis was within and across cases. RESULTS: The PtDA was used with 23% of men in case 1 (95% confidence interval, 19.8%-26.1%) and 98% of men in case 2a (95% confidence interval, 96.5%-99.8%). The pathway was not implemented in case 2b. Men given the PtDA had positive experiences. Many clinicians supported the use of PtDAs, some adapted their discussions with patients, and others did not support the use of PtDAs. To increase use in case 1, participants identified needing a Canadian PtDA available electronically and endorsed by all clinicians. In case 2b, the provincial prostate pathway needed to be implemented. CONCLUSIONS: There was variable uptake of the PtDAs between the cases. Men who received the PtDA had positive outcomes. Several strategies were identified to increase or sustain PtDA use. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses have a key role in supporting men making decisions about prostate cancer treatment by providing PtDAs, answering questions, and advocating for men's preferences.

Implementation of a patient decision aid for men with localized prostate cancer: evaluation of patient outcomes and practice variation.

BACKGROUND: Men with localized prostate cancer often have unrealistic expectations. Practitioners are poor judges of men's preferences, contributing to preference misdiagnosis and unwarranted practice variation. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support men with decisions about localized prostate cancer. This is a comparative case study of two strategies for implementing PtDAs in clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer, evaluating (a) PtDA use; (b) impact on men, practitioners, and health system outcomes; and (c) factors influencing sustained use. METHODS/DESIGN: Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, this comparative case study will be conducted using administrative data, interviews, and surveys. Cases will be bound by geographic location (one hospital in Ontario; province of Saskatchewan) and time. Eligible participants will be all men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, with outcomes assessed using administrative data and interviews. Nurses, urologists, radiation oncologists, and managers will be surveyed and a smaller sample interviewed. Cases will be established for each setting with findings compared across cases. Changes in the proportions of men given the PtDA over 2 years will be determined from administrative data. Factors associated with receiving the PtDA will be explored using multivariable logistic regression analysis. To assess the impact of the PtDA, outcomes will be described using mean and standard deviation (men's decisional conflict) and frequency and proportions (practitioners consulted, uptake of treatment). To estimate the effect of the PtDA on these outcomes, adjusted mean differences and odds ratios will be calculated using exploratory multivariable general linear regression and binary or multinomial logistic regression. Factors influencing sustained PtDA use will be assessed using descriptive analysis of survey findings and thematic analysis of interview transcripts. DISCUSSION: Determining how to embed PtDAs effectively within clinical pathways for men with localized prostate cancer is essential. PtDAs have the potential to strengthen men's active role in making prostate cancer decisions, enhance uptake of shared decision-making by practitioners, and reduce practice variation. Our team of researchers and knowledge users will use findings to improve current PtDA use and consider scaling-up implementation.

Evaluation of the Rectal Cancer Patient Decision Aid: A Before and After Study.

BACKGROUND: In rectal cancer surgery, low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection have equivocal impact on overall quality of life. A rectal cancer decision aid was developed to help patients weigh features of options and share their preference. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a patient decision aid for mid to low rectal cancer surgery on the patients' choice and decision-making process. DESIGN: A before-and-after study was conducted. Baseline data collection occurred after surgeon confirmation of eligibility at the first consultation. Patients used the patient decision aid at home (online and/or paper-based formats) and completed post questionnaires. SETTING: This study was conducted at an academic hospital referral center. PATIENTS: Adults who had rectal cancer at a maximum of 10 cm proximal to the anal verge and were amenable to surgical resection were considered. Those with preexisting stoma and those only receiving abdominoperineal resection for technical reasons were excluded from the study. INTERVENTION: Patient with rectal cancer were provided with a decision aid. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were decisional conflict, knowledge, and preference for a surgical option. RESULTS: Of 136 patients newly diagnosed with rectal cancer over 13 months, 44 (32.4%) were eligible, 36 (81.9%) of the eligible patients consented to participate, and 32 (88.9%) patients completed the study. The mean age of participants was 61.9 ± 9.7 years and tumor location was on average 7.3 ± 2.1 cm above the anal verge. Patients had poor baseline knowledge (52.5%), and their knowledge improved by 37.5% (p < 0.0001) after they used the patient decision aid. Decisional conflict was reduced by 24.2% (p = 0.0001). At baseline, no patients preferred a permanent stoma, and after decision aid exposure, 2 patients (7.1%) preferred permanent stoma. Over 96% of participants would recommend the patient decision aid to others. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the lack of control for potential confounders and potential response bias. CONCLUSIONS: The patient decision aid reduced decisional conflict and improved patient knowledge. Participants would recommend it to other patients with rectal cancer.