Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment – A systematic review

Abstract

General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research-You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain-You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review

“…Many did not adhere to good practice guidance on providing information about the development, evidence used for the content, or reporting readability levels. This limited adherence to the quality criteria has also been found among existing DAs for patients with localized prostate cancer [7, 12]. Nevertheless, it is promising to see that most of the recently launched or updated DAs in our review (i.e., from 2017 onwards) have shown increased adherence to the IPDAS criteria (see Fig.…”

“…In this systematic review, we identified 21 currently available patient DAs for early-stage breast cancer treatment, and critically reviewed their quality (as assessed by the IPDAS checklist [10]) and use of communicative aspects (as assessed by a communicative aspect checklist [12]). This review shows substantial variability in the quality of the DAs, with no existing DA meeting all of the internationally agreed IPDAS criteria.…”

“…The use of communicative aspects by the DAs was assessed by a recently developed and validated communicative aspect checklist for patient DA (Supplementary Material 3) [12]. This tumor-independent checklist consists of 76 items divided into seven CAs: (i) information presentation (items 1–26), (ii) information control (items 27–33), (iii) personalization (items 34–40), (iv) interaction (items 41–55), (v) accessibility of information (items 56–64), (vi) suitability of information (65–68), and (vii) source of information (items 69–76).…”

“…We argue that another factor is the extent to which DAs pay attention to the communicative aspects . In fact, DAs include many communication aspects that may influence the use and understanding of the tools by patients and clinicians, but are not covered by the IPDAS checklist [12]. These include, for instance, how DAs present information about treatment options and associated outcome probabilities to patients (e.g., only words or numbers, or in combination with visual aids) [13], or how they communicate uncertainty around statistics.…”

<p>What Do Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer Consider When Making Treatment Decisions? A Mixed-methods Study</p>

“…Decision aids range from basic informational pamphlets to more sophisticated and interactive technology and internet-based tools. Despite considerable variability in the quality of decision aids and their adherence to criteria outlined in the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, 12,13 decision aids for localized prostate cancer and PSA screening are associated with improved decisional outcomes (eg, reduced decisional conflict and regret, improved knowledge, satisfaction, and perceptions of control). 12,[14][15][16] However, few empirically supported decision aids have been developed for mPCa, leaving men with mPCa with little evidence-based guidance for facilitating shared decision-making.…”