Validation of a Preparation for Decision Making scale

Bennett, Carol; Graham, Ian D.; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Kearing, Stephen; Clay, Kate; O’Connor, Annette M.

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.012

Cited by 226 publications

(226 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both of those measures are often used within 2 weeks of exposure to an intervention designed to prepare the respondent for decision-making 4,26 . However, in the present study, most patients had made the decision 3 or more months before the survey; they were therefore considering the decision retrospectively, and as a result, they may not have remembered how they felt about the decision or the decision-making process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Cancer Treatment Decision-Making by Patients: A Descriptive Study

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveUsing an interview-guided survey, our descriptive study aimed to document the extent to which cancer patients perceive they are involved in making treatment decisions and the factors that influence patient involvement. Patients and methodsOur study enrolled patients from a Canadian ambulatory oncology program who were undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy, or both, for cancer. The adapted Control Preferences Scale was used to survey perceived and preferred roles in decisionmaking. The study survey also included items from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale. ResultsOf 192 participants, 98 (51%) perceived that they were offered treatment choices. Of those 98, 47 (48%) thought that the options were presented equally. Compared with the patients not offered choices, those who were given choices were less passive (4% vs. 29%, p < 0.001) and more satisfied (100% vs. 95%, p < 0.03) in decision-making. Participants whose preferred and perceived roles were different would have preferred more involvement in decision-making. To attain the preferred involvement, patients wanted to receive more information on treatment options, to be given a choice, to have more discussion with the health care team, and to have providers better listen to their needs. ConclusionsOnly half of surveyed patients thought that they were offered choices for their cancer treatment. When offered choices, patients were more active in decisionmaking. Further initiatives are required to determine approaches for supporting patients with cancer so that they can be more involved in decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Cancer Treatment Decision-Making by Patients: A Descriptive Study

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6,7,33,42,43 The preparation measure was adapted from the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. 44,45 The postintervention survey assessed satisfaction with the intervention (12 items) and reassessed knowledge, attitudinal barriers, and preparation. The postconsultation survey assessed decisional conflict (16 items: five-point Likert Scale) 35 and satisfaction with treatment decision (six items).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention to Address Barriers to Clinical Trials

Meropol

Wong

Albrecht

et al. 2016

JCO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes have been identified as barriers to participation in clinical trials by patients with cancer. We developed Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials (PRE-ACT), a theory-guided, Web-based, interactive computer program, to deliver tailored video educational content to patients in an effort to overcome barriers to considering clinical trials as a treatment option. Patients and Methods A prospective, randomized clinical trial compared PRE-ACT with a control condition that provided general clinical trials information produced by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in text format. One thousand two hundred fifty-five patients with cancer were randomly allocated before their initial visit with an oncologist to PRE-ACT (n = 623) or control (n = 632). PRE-ACT had three main components: assessment of clinical trials knowledge and attitudinal barriers, values assessment with clarification back to patients, and provision of a video library tailored to address each patient’s barriers. Outcomes included knowledge and attitudes and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. Results Both PRE-ACT and control interventions improved knowledge and attitudes (all P < .001) compared with baseline. Patients randomly allocated to PRE-ACT showed a significantly greater increase in knowledge (P < .001) and a significantly greater decrease in attitudinal barriers (P < .001) than did their control (text-only) counterparts. Participants in both arms significantly increased their preparedness to consider clinical trials (P < .001), and there was a trend favoring the PRE-ACT group (P < .09). PRE-ACT was also associated with greater patient satisfaction than was NCI text alone. Conclusion These data show that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. Both text and tailored video were effective. The PRE-ACT interactive video program was more effective than NCI text in improving knowledge and reducing attitudinal barriers.

show abstract

“…Lastly, paper and video patient decision aids about knee osteoarthritis management have been rigorously developed and evaluated [1,31,[41][42][43][44] [45][46][47].…”

Section: Selecting the Clinical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Preparation for decision making scale [1,46,[64][65][66] Orthopaedics, prostate cancer, breast cancer, autologous blood donation, hormone replacement therapy. detailed explanations of procedures, risks, and benefits.…”

Section: Introduction and Baseline Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Launching a virtual decision lab: development and field-testing of a web-based patient decision support research platform

Hoffman¹,

Llewellyn‐Thomas

O’Connor

et al. 2014

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Over 100 trials show that patient decision aids effectively improve patients? information comprehension and values-based decision making. However, gaps remain in our understanding of several fundamental and applied questions, particularly related to the design of interactive, personalized decision aids. This paper describes an interdisciplinary development process for, and early field testing of, a web-based patient decision support research platform, or virtual decision lab, to address these questions. Methods: An interdisciplinary stakeholder panel designed the web-based research platform with three components: a) an introduction to shared decision making, b) a web-based patient decision aid, and c) interactive data collection items. Iterative focus groups provided feedback on paper drafts and online prototypes. A field test assessed a) feasibility for using the research platform, in terms of recruitment, usage, and acceptability; and b) feasibility of using the web-based decision aid component, compared to performance of a videobooklet decision aid in clinical care.

show abstract

Validation of a Preparation for Decision Making scale

Cited by 226 publications

References 14 publications

Exploring Cancer Treatment Decision-Making by Patients: A Descriptive Study

Exploring Cancer Treatment Decision-Making by Patients: A Descriptive Study

Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention to Address Barriers to Clinical Trials

Launching a virtual decision lab: development and field-testing of a web-based patient decision support research platform

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About