Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Breast Cancer | Study Protocol

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol

Authors: Bettina Mølri Knudsen, Stine Rauff Søndergaard, Dawn Stacey, Karina Dahl Steffensen

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient’s values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients’ involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision.

Methods

The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict.

Discussion

This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mathers N, Ng CJ, Campbell MJ, et al. Clinical effectiveness of a patient decision aid to improve decision quality and glycaemic control in people with diabetes making treatment choices: a cluster randomised controlled trial (PANDAs) in general practice. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):e001469.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mathers N, Ng CJ, Campbell MJ, et al. Clinical effectiveness of a patient decision aid to improve decision quality and glycaemic control in people with diabetes making treatment choices: a cluster randomised controlled trial (PANDAs) in general practice. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):e001469.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Steffensen KD, Hansen DG, Espersen K, et al. “SDM: HOSP”-a generic model for hospital-based implementation of shared decision making. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(1):e0280547.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Steffensen KD, Hansen DG, Espersen K, et al. “SDM: HOSP”-a generic model for hospital-based implementation of shared decision making. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(1):e0280547.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Ankolekar A, Vanneste BG, Bloemen-van Gurp E, et al. Development and validation of a patient decision aid for prostate Cancer therapy: from paternalistic towards participative shared decision making. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):1–11.CrossRef Ankolekar A, Vanneste BG, Bloemen-van Gurp E, et al. Development and validation of a patient decision aid for prostate Cancer therapy: from paternalistic towards participative shared decision making. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):1–11.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Coulter A, Collins A. Making shared decision-making a reality. London: King’s Fund; 2011. p. 621. Coulter A, Collins A. Making shared decision-making a reality. London: King’s Fund; 2011. p. 621.
6.
go back to reference Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Skinner JS. Geography and the debate over medicare reform: a reform proposal that addresses some underlying causes of Medicare funding woes: geographic variation and lack of incentive for efficient medical practices. Health Aff. 2002;21(Suppl1):W96–112.CrossRef Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Skinner JS. Geography and the debate over medicare reform: a reform proposal that addresses some underlying causes of Medicare funding woes: geographic variation and lack of incentive for efficient medical practices. Health Aff. 2002;21(Suppl1):W96–112.CrossRef
7.
8.
go back to reference Nelson WA, Donnellan JJ, Elwyn G, et al. Implementing shared decision making: an organizational imperative. In: Shared decision making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. 2016. p. 3. Nelson WA, Donnellan JJ, Elwyn G, et al. Implementing shared decision making: an organizational imperative. In: Shared decision making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. 2016. p. 3.
9.
go back to reference Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;(1):CD001431. Stacey D, Lewis KB, Smith M, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;(1):CD001431.
10.
go back to reference Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):291–309.CrossRefPubMed Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A. Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(3):291–309.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Légaré F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff. 2013;32(2):276–84.CrossRef Légaré F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Aff. 2013;32(2):276–84.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, et al. Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):130–3.CrossRefPubMed Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, et al. Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):130–3.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Joseph-Williams N, Abhyankar P, Boland L, et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the international patient decision aid standards collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):907–37.CrossRefPubMed Joseph-Williams N, Abhyankar P, Boland L, et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the international patient decision aid standards collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):907–37.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Thompson R, Trevena L. Demystifying decision aids: a practical guide for clinicians. Shared decision making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p. 1. Thompson R, Trevena L. Demystifying decision aids: a practical guide for clinicians. Shared decision making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. p. 1.
15.
go back to reference Banegas MP, McClure JB, Barlow WE, et al. Results from a randomized trial of a web-based, tailored decision aid for women at high risk for breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(3):364–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Banegas MP, McClure JB, Barlow WE, et al. Results from a randomized trial of a web-based, tailored decision aid for women at high risk for breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(3):364–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Hæe M, Wulff CN, Fokdal L, et al. Development, implementation and evaluation of patient decision aids supporting shared decision making in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. PEC Innovation. 2023;2:100120.CrossRefPubMed Hæe M, Wulff CN, Fokdal L, et al. Development, implementation and evaluation of patient decision aids supporting shared decision making in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. PEC Innovation. 2023;2:100120.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Wulff CN, Hæe M, Hansen DG, et al. Shared decision making in recurrent ovarian cancer: Implementation of patient decision aids across three departments of oncology in Denmark. PEC Innov. 2022;1:100095.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wulff CN, Hæe M, Hansen DG, et al. Shared decision making in recurrent ovarian cancer: Implementation of patient decision aids across three departments of oncology in Denmark. PEC Innov. 2022;1:100095.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Scalia P, Durand M-A, Berkowitz JL, et al. The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(5):817–41.CrossRefPubMed Scalia P, Durand M-A, Berkowitz JL, et al. The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(5):817–41.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Montori VM, Edwards A. Tools to engage patients in clinical encounters. Shared Dec Mak Health Care. 2016;3:57–63.CrossRef Elwyn G, Montori VM, Edwards A. Tools to engage patients in clinical encounters. Shared Dec Mak Health Care. 2016;3:57–63.CrossRef
20.
21.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Olling K, Bechmann T, Madsen PH, et al. Development of a patient decision aid template for use in different clinical settings. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc. 2019;7(1):50–60. Olling K, Bechmann T, Madsen PH, et al. Development of a patient decision aid template for use in different clinical settings. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc. 2019;7(1):50–60.
23.
go back to reference Olling K, Stie M, Winther B, et al. The impact of a patient decision aid on shared decision-making behaviour in oncology care and pulmonary medicine—A field study based on real-life observations. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(6):1121–30.CrossRefPubMed Olling K, Stie M, Winther B, et al. The impact of a patient decision aid on shared decision-making behaviour in oncology care and pulmonary medicine—A field study based on real-life observations. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(6):1121–30.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Sepucha K, Fowler F. Shared decision making process_4 User Guide v.1.0, 2018. Sepucha K, Fowler F. Shared decision making process_4 User Guide v.1.0, 2018.
25.
go back to reference Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, et al. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Counsel. 2010;80(1):94–9.CrossRef Kriston L, Scholl I, Hölzel L, et al. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Counsel. 2010;80(1):94–9.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, et al. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e3085.CrossRef Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, et al. The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(1):e3085.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res Arch. 1997;29(3):21–43. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res Arch. 1997;29(3):21–43.
28.
go back to reference Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, et al. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):284–90.CrossRefPubMed Scholl I, Kriston L, Dirmaier J, et al. Development and psychometric properties of the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire–physician version (SDM-Q-Doc). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):284–90.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Barr PJ, O’Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, et al. The psychometric properties of observer OPTION5, an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(8):970–6.CrossRefPubMed Barr PJ, O’Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, et al. The psychometric properties of observer OPTION5, an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(8):970–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Tsulukidze M, Edwards A, et al. Using a ‘talk’model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION5 Item. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(2):265–71.CrossRefPubMed Elwyn G, Tsulukidze M, Edwards A, et al. Using a ‘talk’model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION5 Item. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(2):265–71.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Probst MA, Lin MP, Sze JJ, et al. Shared decision making for syncope in the emergency department: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(9):853–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Probst MA, Lin MP, Sze JJ, et al. Shared decision making for syncope in the emergency department: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(9):853–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Kok M. Guidance document: evaluating public involvement in research. 2018 Kok M. Guidance document: evaluating public involvement in research. 2018
34.
go back to reference Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.
35.
go back to reference Abelson J, Li K, Wilson G, et al. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):817–27.CrossRefPubMed Abelson J, Li K, Wilson G, et al. Supporting quality public and patient engagement in health system organizations: development and usability testing of the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. Health Expect. 2016;19(4):817–27.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Elwyn G, Grande SW, Barr P. Observer OPTION 5 manual. Darthmouth: The Dartmouth Institute for health policy and clinical practice; 2016. Elwyn G, Grande SW, Barr P. Observer OPTION 5 manual. Darthmouth: The Dartmouth Institute for health policy and clinical practice; 2016.
Metadata
Title
Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol
Authors
Bettina Mølri Knudsen
Stine Rauff Søndergaard
Dawn Stacey
Karina Dahl Steffensen
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12086-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Cancer 1/2024 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine