A broader range of decisional tools should be investigated. This paper will update
the decisional outcome data and assess the features of decisional tool. Literature
search strictly followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses guideline. Articles that cited Lin et al and Violette et al were searched.
Features of decisional tools were analyzed using the International Patient Decision
Aid Standards Instrument criteria. The scores of the 31 decisional tools ranged from
6 to 15, which did not correlate proportionally with the positive decisional outcomes.
Personal importance appeared to be a significant component. Multidisciplinary clinics
are superior in improving decisional outcomes as they promote more at shared decision
making.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 1425-1437
- Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer.N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 203-213
- Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States.J Urol. 2012; 187: 2087
- Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies.Eur Urol. 2009; 55: 1037
- Decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment choice: systematic review and meta-analysis.CA Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65: 239-251
- Patient decision aids for prostate cancer treatment: a systematic review of the literature.CA Cancer J Clin. 2009; 59: 379-390
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.BMJ. 2009; 339: b2535https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
- Does a decision aid for prostate cancer affect different aspects of decisional regret, assessed with new regret scales? A randomized, controlled trial.Health Expect. 2016; 19: 459-470
- A decision aid to support informed choices for patients recently diagnosed with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.Cancer Nurs. 2015; 38
- Intervening to improve psychological outcomes for men with prostate cancer.Psychooncology. 2013; 22: 1025-1034
- The personal patient profile-prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: a multi-center randomized trial.Urol Oncol. 2013; 31: 1012-1021
- Testing the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a “decision navigation” intervention for early stage prostate cancer patients in Scotland—a randomized controlled trial.Psychooncology. 2013; 22: 1017-1024
- Cancer patient and survivor research from the cancer information service research consortium: a preview of three large randomized trials and initial lessons learned.J Health Commun. 2013; 18: 543-562
- The impact of explicit values clarification exercises in a patient decision aid emerges after the decision is actually made: evidence from a randomized controlled trial.Med Decis Making. 2012; 32: 616-626
- Choice between prostatectomy and radiotherapy when men are eligible for both: a randomized controlled trial of usual care vs decision aid.BJU Int. 2013; 111: 564-573
- Acceptability and preliminary feasibility of an internet/CD-ROM-based education and decision program for early-stage prostate cancer patients: randomized pilot study.J Med Internet Res. 2012; 14 ([serial online]): e6
- Use and evaluation of a CD-ROM-based decision aid for prostate cancer treatment decisions.Behav Med. 2010; 36: 130-140
- Managing uncertainty about treatment decision making in early stage prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial.Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 77: 349-359
- Comparing a generic and individualized information decision support intervention for men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.Cancer Nurs. 2007; 30 ([serial online]): E7-E15
- Impact of providing audiotapes of primary treatment consultations to men with prostate cancer: a multi-site, randomized, controlled trial.Psychooncology. 2007; 16: 543-552
- A randomized controlled trial comparing two educational booklets on prostate cancer.Can J Urol. 2006; 13: 3321-3326
- A randomized trial of choice of treatment in prostate cancer: the effect of intervention on the treatment chosen.BJU Int. 2004; 93 (discussion 56): 52-56
- Empowerment of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer.Cancer Nurs. 1997; 20: 187-196
- A prospective cohort study of treatment decision-making for prostate cancer following participation in a multidisciplinary clinic.Urol Oncol: Semin Orig Investig. 2016; 34: 233.e17-233.e25
- Integrating patient preference into treatment decisions for men with prostate cancer at the point of care.J Urol. 2016; 196: 1640-1644
- Decision support and shared decision making about active surveillance versus active treatment among men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer: a pilot study.J Canc Educ. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-1073-7
- Impact of a decision aid on newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients' understanding of the rationale for active surveillance.Patient Educ Couns. 2017; 100: 812-817
- Impact of a prostate multidisciplinary clinic program on patient treatment decisions and on adherence to NCCN guidelines: The William Beaumont hospital experience. American Journal of Clinical Oncology: cancer clinical trials.Am J Clin Oncol. 2013; 36: 121-125
- Evaluating a decision aid for patients with localized prostate cancer in clinical practice.Urol Int. 2008; 81: 383-388
- Offering a treatment choice in the irradiation of prostate cancer leads to better informed and more active patients, without harm to well-being.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 70: 442-448
- The utility of a multimedia education program for prostate cancer patients: a formative evaluation.Br J Cancer. 2004; 91: 855-860
- Do patients with localized prostate cancer treatment really want more aggressive treatment?.J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 4581-4586
- Evidence-based patient choice: a prostate cancer decision aid in plain language.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005; 5: 16
- Shared decision-making—results from an interdisciplinary consulting service for prostate cancer.World J Urol. 2004; 22: 441-448
- Provision of individualized information to men and their partners to facilitate treatment decision making in prostate cancer.Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003; 30: NO1-NO108
- Health literacy and shared decision making for prostate cancer patients with low socioeconomic status.Cancer Invest. 2001; 19: 684-691
- Charting your course: formative evaluation of a prostate cancer treatment decision aid.Int Electronic J Health Edu. 2000; 3: 44-54
- Assessment of the feasibility and impact of shared decision making in prostate cancer.Urology. 1998; 51: 63-66
- Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool - NCBI.(Available at:)
- The ROBINS-I Tool. (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions.(Available at:)
- Validation of a decisional conflict scale.Med Decis Making. 1995; 15: 25-30
- The Control Preferences Scale.Can J Nurs Res. 1997; 29: 21-43
- The decision evaluation scales.Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 57: 286-293
- The preparation for Decision Making Scale.1996 (University of Ottawa)
- What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making.Arch Intern Med. 1996; 156: 1414-1420
- Validation of a decision regret scale.Med Decis Making. 2003; 23: 281-292
- Decision self-efficacy.(Ottawa Health Decision Centre at the Ottawa Health Research Institute: Ottawa University; Available at:)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 31, 2017
Accepted:
October 10,
2017
Received:
September 1,
2017
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
