Medical Decision Making
Decision preparation, satisfaction and regret in a multi-center sample of men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.04.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To describe relationships between use of the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) decision support system and patient characteristics, and perceived preparation for decision making (PrepDM), satisfaction and decisional regret in the context of prostate cancer treatment choice.

Methods

494 men with localized prostate cancer (LPC) were randomized to receive the P3P intervention or usual care and completed pre-treatment, 1-month and 6-month outcome measures. Multivariable linear regression models were fit for each outcome.

Results

Physician consult visits prior to enrollment, race/ethnicity, and use of clinic-provided books were significant predictors of perceived PrepDM at 1 month. Prior Internet use and PrepDM significantly predicted 6-month decision satisfaction. Decisional regret was significantly predicted by demographics, anxiety, PrepDM score, and EPIC bowel domain score at 6 months. Use of P3P did not predict any outcome.

Conclusion

While the P3P intervention did not significantly affect the outcomes, pre-enrollment information and preparation were strong predictors of the 1- and 6-month outcomes. Decision regret was significantly influenced by personal characteristics and post-treatment symptoms/side effects.

Practice implications

Information received and used between biopsy and the treatment options consult visit is likely to make a difference in decision satisfaction.

Introduction

Men with localized prostate cancer (LPC) face a treatment decision for which there are multiple options with varying side effect profiles, yet no demonstrable survival advantage for the majority of men diagnosed as low-risk. Despite a myriad of lay and professional patient education sources, direct clinician facilitation of such a treatment decision can be truncated or compromised due to shortened face-to-face clinic visits and the complexity of medical factors intertwined with patients’ personal factors. Moreover, standard counseling, as studies across medical settings have shown [1], may focus more on information giving than elaboration and consideration of patient preferences and expectations.

At a 2011 National Cancer Institute, state-of-the-science conference addressing active surveillance for LPC, experts recommended research in “methods to support shared decision making, including participation of non-physician health care providers and the use of decision support tools” as well as “methods to improve patient satisfaction and reduce regret.” [2, p. 7]. The authors of a 2009 Cochrane review [3] concluded that health care decision aids generally were effective with regard to patients’ involvement in the decision and promoting informed, values-based decisions. In the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) [4], [5] the goal of a decision support intervention is to prepare patients for decisions where there is uncertainty about the best approach, outcomes are unpredictable, and individual values, expectations and preferences are relevant. A high quality decision in this framework is one in which the patient has been informed, personal preferences and values honored and the patient is satisfied with the process. Common outcomes in trials of decision support interventions for LPC include the actual choice made, knowledge, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision making, decisional regret and anxiety [6], [7]. Quality of life outcomes relevant to symptoms and side effects of LPC and its treatment are known to affect satisfaction and may have important relationships with other outcomes [8].

The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P) intervention [9] was developed to provide tailored decision support to men recently diagnosed with LPC, addressing the complex scenario of medical and personal factors that influence a treatment decision. The Web-based P3P has been shown to significantly decrease decisional conflict over six months, measured at baseline, one and six months, in a multi-center randomized trial [10]. We now report additional outcomes of the P3P trial measured only at one or six months: preparation for decision making, satisfaction with decision, and decision regret. We hypothesized that use of the P3P decision support system would be associated with perceived preparation for decision making, satisfaction with the decision, and lower decisional regret.

Section snippets

Methods

A prospective, randomized clinical trial enrolled 494 of 724 (68%) eligible patients with recent diagnoses of LPC, pre-treatment, to test a decision support system for treatment decision making [10]. Eligible men had T1 or T2, histologically proven LPC, spoke English or Spanish, were consulting with specialists who identified participants as candidates for at least two treatment options, and had not begun therapy. Participants were enrolled at six clinical sites in four American cities, with

Results

At 1 month, 450 of 494 (91.1%) men returned questionnaires or submitted responses on line. Of these, 393 participants reported a treatment preference and/or decision. At 6 months, 436 (88.3%) responded, with 401 having expressed a treatment preference and/or decision. Table 1 displays the demographic characteristics of the sample for each time point. No significant differences in baseline characteristic were found between the participants included in the analyses for 1 month and 6 months and

Discussion

While use of the P3P decision support intervention, in addition to usual preparatory conditions, did not predict significantly higher perceived preparation for decision making or satisfaction and did not significantly lower decisional regret, our findings reveal important associations among these outcomes, interesting baseline characteristics and several mutable variables that can be tested in future trials for enhancing the quality of a LPC treatment decision.

Men who perceived higher

Funding source

This work was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Nursing Research, R01NR009692.

This material is the result of work supported with resources and use of facilities at the Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center, Augusta, GA, VA Puget Sound Healthcare System, Seattle, WA, and the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX.

Conflict of interest

There are no financial disclosures from any authors.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions of the study participants and skilled research and administrative staff.

References (31)

  • J.C. Hu et al.

    Determinants of treatment regret in low-income, uninsured men with prostate cancer

    Urology

    (2008)
  • D. Stacey et al.

    Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2008)
  • National Institutes of Health Role of Active Surveillance in the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer
  • A.M. O’Connor et al.

    Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2009)
  • Ottawa Health Research Institute

    Ottawa decision support framework: update, gaps and research priorities

    (2011)
  • Cited by (0)

    RCT registration: NCT00692653.

    View full text