Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2019

Open Access 01-11-2019 | Breast Cancer | Review

Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review

Authors: Ruben Vromans, Kim Tenfelde, Steffen Pauws, Mies van Eenbergen, Ingeborg Mares-Engelberts, Galina Velikova, Lonneke van de Poll-Franse, Emiel Krahmer

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Decision aids (DAs) support patients in shared decision-making by providing balanced evidence-based treatment information and eliciting patients’ preferences. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the quality and communicative aspects of DAs for women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

Methods

Twenty-one currently available patient DAs were identified through both published literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO) and online sources. The DAs were reviewed for their quality by using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) checklist, and subsequently assessed to what extent they paid attention to various communicative aspects, including (i) information presentation, (ii) personalization, (iii) interaction, (iv) information control, (v) accessibility, (vi) suitability, and (vii) source of information.

Results

The quality of the DAs varied substantially, with many failing to comply with all components of the IPDAS criteria (mean IPDAS score = 64%, range 31–92%). Five aids (24%) did not include any probability information, 10 (48%) presented multimodal descriptions of outcome probabilities (combining words, numbers, and visual aids), and only 2 (10%) provided personalized treatment outcomes based on patients and tumor characteristics. About half (12; 57%) used interaction methods for eliciting patients’ preferences, 16 (76%) were too lengthy, and 5 (24%) were not fully accessible.

Conclusions

In addition to the limited adherence to the IPDAS checklist, our findings suggest that communicative aspects receive even less attention. Future patient DA developments for breast cancer treatment should include communicative aspects that could influence the uptake of DAs in daily clinical practice.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Zdenkowski N, Butow P, Tesson S, Boyle F (2016) A systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer. The Breast 26:31–45CrossRef
2.
Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K et al (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD1431
3.
Stiggelbout AM, van der Weijden T, Wit MPTD, Frosch D, Legare F, Montori VM, Trevena L, Elwyn G (2012) Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 344:e256CrossRef
4.
Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J et al (2017) A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ 359:j4891CrossRef
5.
Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C et al (2013) “Many miles to go.” A systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:14CrossRef
6.
Lin GA, Halley M, Rendle KAS, Tietbohl C, May SG, Trujillo L, Frosch DL (2013) An effort to spread decision aids in five California primary care practices yielded low distribution, highlighting hurdles. Health Aff 32:311–320CrossRef
7.
Adsul P, Wray R, Spradling K, Darwish O, Weaver N, Siddiqui S (2015) Systematic review of decision aids for newly diagnosed patients with prostate cancer making treatment decisions. J Urol 194:1247–1252CrossRef
8.
Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A (2006) Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 333:417–419CrossRef
9.
Feibelmann S, Yang TS, Uzogara EE, Sepucha K (2011) What does it take to have sustained use of decision aids? A programme evaluation for the breast cancer initiative. Heal Expect 14:85–95CrossRef
10.
Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Bennett C et al (2009) Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the international patient decision aid standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS ONE 4:e4705CrossRef
11.
Bekker HL (2010) The loss of reason in patient decision aid research: do checklists damage the quality of informed choice interventions? Patient Educ Couns 78:357–364CrossRef
12.
Vromans RD, van Eenbergen MC, Pauws SC, Geleijnse G, van der Poel HG, van de Poll-Franse LV, Krahmer EJ (2019) Communicative aspects of decision aids for localized prostate cancer treatment—a systematic review. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 37:409–429CrossRef
13.
Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A et al (2013) Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:S7CrossRef
14.
Witteman HO, Scherer LD, Gavaruzzi T et al (2016) Design features of explicit values clarification methods. Med Decis Mak 36:453–471CrossRef
15.
Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD (2004) Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. Patient Educ Couns 54:265–273CrossRef
16.
Shannon C, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. Univ Illinois Press 5:1–131
17.
Obeidat R, Finnell DS, Lally RM (2011) Decision aids for surgical treatment of early stage breast cancer: a narrative review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 85:e311–e321CrossRef
18.
Waljee JF, Rogers MAM, Alderman AK (2007) Decision aids and breast cancer: do they influence choice for surgery and knowledge of treatment options? J Clin Oncol 25:1067–1073CrossRef
19.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRef
20.
McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica 22:276–282CrossRef
21.
Harwood R, Douglas C, Clark D (2011) Decision aids for breast and nodal surgery in patients with early breast cancer: development and a pilot study. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 7:114–122CrossRef
22.
Hawley ST, Newman L, Griggs JJ, Kosir MA, Katz SJ (2016) Evaluating a decision aid for improving decision making in patients with early-stage breast cancer. Patient 9:161–169CrossRef
23.
Hawley ST, Li Y, Jeanpierre LA, Goodell S, Jagsi R, Ward KC, Sabel MS, Katz SJ (2017) Study protocol: a randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive breast cancer treatment patient decision tool (iCanDecide). Contemp Clin Trials Commun 5:123–132CrossRef
24.
Hawley ST, Li Y, An LC et al (2018) Improving breast cancer surgical treatment decision making: the iCanDecide randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 36:659–666CrossRef
25.
Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Friedman LC, Granchi TS, Neff NE, Spann SJ, Robinson EK, Aoki N, Robert Beck J (2006) Preliminary testing of a just-in-time, user-defined values clarification exercise to aid lower literate women in making informed breast cancer treatment decisions. Health Expect 9:218–231CrossRef
26.
Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granchi TS, Neff NE, Robinson EK, Spann SJ, Aoki N, Friedman LC, Beck JR (2011) Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: a randomized trial among patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 84:41–48CrossRef
27.
Sherman KA, Shaw LKE, Winch CJ et al (2016) Reducing decisional conflict and enhancing satisfaction with information among women considering breast reconstruction following mastectomy: results from the BRECONDA randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 138:592e–602eCrossRef
28.
Wong J, D’Alimonte L, Angus J, Paszat L, Metcalfe K, Whelan T, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Warner E, Franssen E, Szumacher E (2012) Development of patients’ decision aid for older women with stage I breast cancer considering radiotherapy after lumpectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:30–38CrossRef
29.
Zdenkowski N, Butow P, Hutchings E, Douglas C, Coll JR, Boyle FM (2016) A decision aid for women considering neoadjuvant systemic therapy for operable invasive breast cancer: development and protocol of a phase II evaluation study (ANZ1301 DOMINO). JMIR Res Protoc 5:e88CrossRef
30.
Zdenkowski N, Butow P, Spillane A, Douglas C, Snook K, Jones M, Oldmeadow C, Fewster S, Beckmore C, Boyle FM (2018) Single-arm longitudinal study to evaluate a decision aid for women offered neoadjuvant systemic therapy for operable breast cancer. JNCCN J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16:378–385CrossRef
31.
Trevena LJ, Davey HM, Barratt A, Butow P, Caldwell P (2006) A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract 12:13–23CrossRef
32.
Engelhardt EG, Pieterse AH, Han PKJ et al (2017) Disclosing the uncertainty associated with prognostic estimates in breast cancer: current practices and patients’ perceptions of uncertainty. Med Decis Mak 37:179–192CrossRef
33.
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2008) Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interes 8:53–96CrossRef
34.
35.
Mayer RE (2005) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE (ed) Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 31–48CrossRef
36.
Kent DM, Hayward RA (2007) Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients. JAMA 298:1210–1212CrossRef
37.
Flynn D, Ford GA, Stobbart L, Rodgers H, Murtagh MJ, Thomson RG (2013) A review of decision support, risk communication and patient information tools for thrombolytic treatment in acute stroke: lessons for tool developers. BMC Health Serv Res 13:225CrossRef
38.
Fraenkel L, Fried RF (2010) Individualized medical decision making. Arch Intern Med 170:566–569CrossRef
39.
van Stam MA, van der Poel H (2018) The new standard: personalised information about the risks and benefits of treatment strategies for localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 74:34–36CrossRef
40.
de Rooij BH, Ezendam NPM, Vos MC, Pijnenborg JMA, Boll D, Kruitwagen RFPM, van de Poll-Franse LV (2019) Patients’ information coping styles influence the benefit of a survivorship care plan in the ROGY care trial: new insights for tailored delivery. Cancer 125:788–797CrossRef
41.
42.
Lustria MLA, Cortese J, Gerend MA, Schmitt K, Kung YM, Mclaughlin C (2016) A model of tailoring effects: a randomized controlled trial examining the meachanisms of tailoring in a web-based STD screening intervention. Heal Psychol 35:1214–1224CrossRef
43.
Ritterband LM, Thorndike FP, Cox DJ, Kovatchev BP, Gonder-Frederick LA (2009) A behavior change model for internet interventions. Ann Behav Med 38:18–27CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessing the quality and communicative aspects of patient decision aids for early-stage breast cancer treatment: a systematic review
Authors
Ruben Vromans
Kim Tenfelde
Steffen Pauws
Mies van Eenbergen
Ingeborg Mares-Engelberts
Galina Velikova
Lonneke van de Poll-Franse
Emiel Krahmer
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05351-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2019 Go to the issue

Clinical trial

Vaginal CO2 laser for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy in women with breast cancer: LAAVA pilot study

Preclinical study

Accuracy and clinical implications of pre-operative breast core needle biopsy diagnoses of fibroepithelial neoplasms and sarcomatoid carcinomas

Epidemiology

Assessing the effectiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing guidelines in identifying African American breast cancer patients with deleterious genetic mutations

Epidemiology

Transforming growth factor beta receptor II (TGFBR2) promoter region polymorphism in Brazilian breast cancer patients: association with susceptibility, clinicopathological features, and interaction with TGFB1 haplotypes

Clinical trial

Can we see what is invisible? The role of MRI in the evaluation and management of patients with pathological nipple discharge

Epidemiology

National trends of synchronous bilateral breast cancer incidence in the United States
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

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
Image Credits