Evaluation of a question-and-answer booklet on early-stage prostate-cancer

Feldman‐Stewart, Deb; Brundage, Michael; Manen, Lori Van; Skarsgard, David; Siemens, Rob

doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00075-7

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with previous evaluations of cancer information books (Blacklay et al, 1998; Feldman-Stewart et al, 2003), overall satisfaction with the Now What . .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Educational print resources that have been developed for cancer patients have been evaluated previously (eg, Blacklay, Eiser, & Ellis, 1998; Feldman-Stewart, Brundage, Van Manen, Skarsgard, & Siemens, 2003). Like other health literature (Rudd, Betts, Kritch, Lohse, & Boeckner, 2005), these studies obtained feedback from end users on acceptability and expectations surrounding the resource, as well as perceived changes in knowledge.…”

Section: Evaluating Cancer Print Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Like other health literature (Rudd, Betts, Kritch, Lohse, & Boeckner, 2005), these studies obtained feedback from end users on acceptability and expectations surrounding the resource, as well as perceived changes in knowledge. For example, an evaluation of a booklet on prostate cancer for patients and their families (Feldman-Stewart et al, 2003) focused on satisfaction, how the booklet was read, and why people wanted the booklet. A booklet developed by health professionals and evaluated in the UK for adult survivors (14-32 years old) of childhood cancer was evaluated using a structured interview when the participants were given the booklet and again a week later (Blacklay et al, 1998).…”

Section: Evaluating Cancer Print Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of a Resource for Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer

McDonald

Patterson

2015

J Pediatr Oncol Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with previous evaluations of cancer information books (Blacklay et al, 1998; Feldman-Stewart et al, 2003), overall satisfaction with the Now What . .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Evaluating Cancer Print Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evaluating Cancer Print Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of a Resource for Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer

McDonald

Patterson

2015

J Pediatr Oncol Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Optimising communication between healthcare providers and patients is challenging (178,179), but interventions to meet the information needs of patients with early prostate cancer have been designed and evaluated (180,181). One of these is an information booklet that has been shown to enhance patient knowledge and comprehension of facts about their disease, and that directly targets most of the communication-related elements of care that were identified as priorities for improvement in the present study (180).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

2531 Measuring the quality of personal care in prostate cancer radiotherapy

Foley¹,

Groome²,

Feldman‐Stewart³

et al. 2015

European Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Quality of care includes both technical and non-technical elements of care (personal care). We previously developed a questionnaire to assess the quality of personal care in prostate cancer radiotherapy. The objectives of this thesis were: 1) to determine which elements of personal care were most important to patients; 2) to develop a method of integrating ratings of importance and ratings of quality to identify elements of care that should become targets for quality improvement; 3) to describe the quality of personal care and identify the elements of care that should be targeted for quality improvement. Methods: We surveyed 108 patients undergoing radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire and rated both the importance and the quality of their care for each of the 143 elements. The importance and the quality of each element was measured by the percentage of respondents who rated it "very important" and "very good", respectively. Different methods for identifying elements to target for quality improvement were developed and compared. Results: The percentage of elements rated "very important" and "very good" varied from patient to patient. Aspects of care deemed important to most patients were: the perceived competence of their caregivers, the empathy and respectfulness of their caregivers, and the adequacy of information sharing. Patients assigned their lowest quality ratings to elements relating to the treatment environment and comprehensiveness of services, but they also rated these elements as relatively unimportant. We developed three methods of identifying priorities for quality improvement and found that incorporating importance ratings with quality ratings identified different priorities than quality ratings alone. One method was theoretically superior since the ratings for importance and quality were linked for each individual. Elements of care relating to communication of information about the disease and its treatment were identified as the highest priorities for improvement. iii Conclusions: We have developed indicators for measuring the quality of personal care in prostate cancer radiotherapy. We have shown that it is possible to measure the quality of personal care in routine practice and we developed a method for identifying priorities for quality improvement.

show abstract

“…Decision support technologies provide much needed information to patients, but (1) focus solely on medical factors considered relevant by physicians (eg, histology, comorbidity, and age), (2) fail to customize the information to the personal characteristics of the patient [8-10], or (3) depend on interventions that have never been rigorously tested in randomized trials with diverse samples [2,11,12]. The goal of this ongoing program of research is to improve the decision-making experience for men with LPC by highlighting personal characteristics and factors that men bring to the treatment decision: their desired level of participation in decision making, the importance of potential outcomes and complications, current symptoms, priority information topics, the influence of others, race/ethnicity, and self-perception of age.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Evaluation of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), a Web-Based Decision Support System for Men Newly Diagnosed With Localized Prostate Cancer

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Given that no other disease with the high incidence of localized prostate cancer (LPC) has so many treatments with so few certainties related to outcomes, many men are faced with assuming some responsibility for the treatment decision along with guidance from clinicians. Men strongly consider their own personal characteristics and other personal factors as important and influential to the decision. Clinical researchers have not developed or comprehensively investigated interventions to facilitate the insight and prioritizing of personal factors along with medical factors that are required of a man in preparation for the treatment decision.Objectives The purpose of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate the feasibility and usability of a Web-based decision support technology, the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in men newly diagnosed with LPC.Methods Use cases were developed followed by infrastructure and content application. The program was provided on a personal desktop computer with a touch screen monitor. Participant responses to the query component of P3P determined the content of the multimedia educational and coaching intervention. The intervention was tailored to race, age, and personal factors reported as influencing the decision. Prepilot usability testing was conducted using a “think aloud” interview to identify navigation and content challenges. These issues were addressed prior to deployment in the clinic. A clinical pilot was conducted in an academic medical center where men sought consultation and treatment for LPC. Completion time, missing data, and acceptability were measured.Results Prepilot testing included 4 men with a past diagnosis of LPC who had completed therapy. Technical navigation issues were documented along with confusing content language. A total of 30 additional men with a recent diagnosis of LPC completed the P3P program in clinic prior to consulting with a urologist regarding treatment options. In a mean time of 46 minutes (SD 13 minutes), participants completed the P3P query and intervention components. Of a possible 4560 items for 30 participants, 22 (0.5%) were missing. Acceptability was reported as high overall. The sections of the intervention reported as most useful were the statistics graphs, priority information topics, and annotated external website links.Conclusions The P3P intervention is a feasible and usable program to facilitate treatment decision making by men with newly diagnosed LPC. Testing in a multisite randomized trial with a diverse sample is warranted.

show abstract

Evaluation of a question-and-answer booklet on early-stage prostate-cancer

Cited by 15 publications

References 16 publications

Evaluation of a Resource for Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer

Evaluation of a Resource for Adolescents and Young Adults Diagnosed With Cancer

2531 Measuring the quality of personal care in prostate cancer radiotherapy

Development and Evaluation of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), a Web-Based Decision Support System for Men Newly Diagnosed With Localized Prostate Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About