Search

Background: Controversy surrounds treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPC)., Objectives: To assess men's localized prostate cancer (LPC) knowledge and its association with decision-making difficulty, satisfaction and regret., Methods: Population-based sample of 201 men (104 white, 97 black), ≤ 75 years with newly diagnosed LPC completed a self-administered survey., Results: Mean age was 61(±7.6) years; two-thirds had less than a Bachelor's degree. Mean LPC knowledge was low, 5.87 (±2.53, maximum score 11). More than a third of men who received surgery or radiation did not know about serious long-term treatment side effects. Fewer than half of the men correctly answered comparative side effect and survival benefit questions between surgery and radiation. Knowledge gaps were greatest among black men, men with lower education, single men. Tumor aggressiveness (i.e. PSA level, Gleason score) and treatment choice were not associated with knowledge. Knowledge was not associated with decisional satisfaction or regret. However, greater knowledge was associated with greater decision-making difficulty ( P = .018)., Conclusions: Significant LPC knowledge gaps existed across groups, with greater knowledge gaps among black men. The association of decision-making difficulty with knowledge was independent of race. Better patient education is needed, but may not alleviate men's decision-making difficulty due to inherent scientific uncertainty., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values., Objectives: To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions., Search Methods: Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008., Selection Criteria: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence., Main Results: We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup., Authors' Conclusions: Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Objectives: This paper describes the development and pilot testing of a communication skills curriculum based on medical student curriculum and modified for use with patients., Methods: Six key concepts from our introductory medical education communication skills curriculum were identified. The core knowledge and skills related to these concepts were reorganized into six modules, including presentation materials, handouts and active learning components. The curriculum was pilot tested with three independent groups of non-medical participants, representing a broad cross-section of the community., Results: Participants reported a high level of satisfaction; over 80% found the program helpful for learning new information and skills, and 92% for working with their physicians. Over 90% would recommend the program to others. Participant self-assessments revealed the greatest change in knowledge of medical interviewing. Skill changes were greatest in expressing emotion and efficiently telling the medical story. The pilot tests also highlighted the importance of other issues related to recruitment and health literacy., Conclusions: This project demonstrates that key concepts underlying doctor-patient communications can be simplified and repackaged for use from the patient's perspective., Practice Implications: Similar curricula can empower patients from all walks of life to better communicate with their health care providers and enhance their healthcare experience.

Objective: To examine men's interpretations of graphical information types viewed in a high-quality, previously tested videotape decision aid (DA). SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, DESIGN: A community-dwelling sample of men >50 years of age (N = 188) balanced by education (college/non-college) and race (Black/White) were interviewed just following their viewing of a videotape DA. A descriptive study design was used to examine men's interpretations of a representative sample of the types of graphs that were shown in the benign prostatic hyperplasia videotape DA., Main Variables Studied: Men provided their interpretation of graphs information presented in three formats that varied in complexity: pictograph, line and horizontal bar graph. Audiotape transcripts of men's responses were coded for meaning and content-related interpretation statements., Results: Men provided both meaning and content-focused interpretations of the graphs. Accuracy of interpretation was lower than hypothesized on the basis of literature review (85.4% for pictograph, 65.7% for line graph, 47.8% for horizontal bar graph). Accuracy for pictograph and line graphs was associated with education level, chi2(1) = 3.94, P = 0.047, and chi2(1) = 7.55, P = 0.006, respectively. Accuracy was uncorrelated with men's reported liking of the graphs, chi2(1) = 2.00, P = 0.441., Conclusion: While men generally liked the DA, accuracy of graphs interpretation was associated with format complexity and education level. Graphs are often recommended to improve comprehension of information in DAs. However, additional evaluation is needed in experimental and naturalistic observational settings to develop best practice standards for data representation.

Introduction: In this study, low-income perimenopausal African-American women were surveyed to determine knowledge of menopause and hormone replacement therapy (HRT)., Methods: A 92-item survey assessed perceptions of menopause and health risks to identify preventive strategies in this population. The nonprobability sample of 197 African-American women typically had incomes of < $15,000, age 46-55, high school education or less., Results: Major findings were that African-American women (1) experienced expected levels of occurrence of symptoms, but perceived them as not very bothersome, (2) had a knowledge deficit related to menopause and HRT, and (3) had expectations about menopause that underestimated their lifetime risk of heart disease., Conclusion: The lack of knowledge about menopause, HRT, and lifetime risks of heart disease suggests that low-income African-American women need better information for decision making about prevention. However, this sample knew the rank order of major health risks. Health information to the public and culturally relevant patient education are critical prerequisites to any preventive behavioral strategies in this population. Further research should identify culturally based expectations of disease risk and efficacy of prevention strategy to tailor messages to particular subpopulations.

This study investigates how a selected group of Black and White nurses perceived the risks and benefits of estrogen replacement therapy. The Menopausal Health Survey was developed as a mailed, self-administered survey to assess nurses' knowledge of estrogen's effects on osteoporosis and heart disease, and to assess nurses' attitudes toward estrogen replacement therapy. The findings suggest that given two samples of women with different ethinic backgrounds, but similar geographic locations, incomes, educational backgrounds, and health-seeking practices, there are distinct differences in knowledge about and perceptions of estrogen replacement therapy. These discrepancies highlight areas for potential improvement in the provision of health care to minority women.