Top

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Study protocol

Comparison of explicit values clarification method (VCM), implicit VCM and no VCM decision aids for men considering prostate cancer screening: protocol of a randomized trial

Authors: S. Baptista, B. Heleno, A. Teixeira, K. L. Taylor, C. Martins

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is considered a preference sensitive decision; meaning it does not only depend on what is best from a medical point of view, but also from a patient value standpoint. Decision aids are evidence-based tools which are shown to help people feel clearer about their values; therefore it has been advocated that decision aids should contain a specific values clarification method (VCM). VCMs may be either implicit or explicit, but the evidence concerning the best method is scarce. We aim to compare the perceived clarity of personal values in men considering PSA screening using decision aids with no VCM versus an implicit VCM versus an explicit VCM.

Methods

Male factory employees from an industrial facility in the Northern region of Portugal aged 50 to 69 years old will be randomly assigned to one of three decision aid groups used to support prostate cancer screening decisions: (i) decision aid with information only (control), (ii) decision aid with information plus an implicit VCM, (iii) decision aid with information plus an explicit VCM.

Men will be allowed release time from work to attend a session at their workplace. After a brief oral presentation, those willing to participate in the study will fill the baseline questionnaire, plus a 5 point-Likert scale question about intentions to undergo screening, and will then receive the intervention materials to complete.

We estimated a total sample size of 276 participants; with 92 in each group.

The primary outcome will be the perceived clarity of personal values assessed by the Portuguese validated translation of the three subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes will be intention to be screened (before and after the intervention), the total score from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the self-report of having or not undergone screening at 6 months.

Discussion

This study will add to the body of evidence on the role of decision aids to support health preference-sensitive choices and provide further insight on the impact of different methods for eliciting people’s values embedded within a decision aid.

Trial registration

NCT03988673 - clinicalTrials.gov (2019/06/17).

Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108 PMID: 25651787.CrossRef

Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Mansson M, Tammela TLJ, Zappa M, Nellen V, et al. ERSPC investigators. A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;(19):30150–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009.

Heijnsdijk EAM, Wever EM, Auvinen A, Hugosson J, Ciatto S, Nellen V, et al. Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:595–605. 22894572.CrossRef

Garvelink MM, ter Kuile MM, Stiggelbout AM, de Vries M. Values clarification in a decision aid about fertility preservation: does it add to information provision? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:68.CrossRef

Volk R, Lewellyn-Thomas H. The 2012 IPDAS Background Document: An Introduction. In: Volk R, Lewellyn-Thomas H, editors. Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document; 2012. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Introduction.pdf. Accessed December 2018.

Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 PMID: 28402085. Art. No.: CD001431.

Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Volk RJ, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. The international patient decision aids standards (IPDAS) collaboration: developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333:417–0. 16908462.CrossRef

Sepucha KR, Abhyankar P, Hoffman AS, Bekker HL, LeBlanc A, Levin CA, et al. Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient decision aid evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE checklist. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:380–8.CrossRef

Abhyankar P, Bekker HL, Summers BA, Velikova G. Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation. Health Expect. 2011;14(1):20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00615.x.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Crump RT. Decision Support for Patients: Values Clarification and Preference Elicitation. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1_suppl):50S–79S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558712461182.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Brenner A, Howard K, Lewis C, Sheridan S, Crutchfield T, Hawley S, et al. Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;29(3):507–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2701-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Sheridan SL, Griffith JM, Behrend L, Gizlice Z. Jianwen Cai, Pignone MP. Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(4):E28–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10369008.CrossRef

13.

Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(Issue 1) Art. No: CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.

14.

Witteman HO, Gavaruzzi T, Scherer LD, Pieterse AH, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Chipenda DS, et al. Effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(6):760–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16634085.CrossRef

15.

Kassan EC, Williams RM, Kelly SP, Barry SA, Penek S, Fishman MB, et al. Men's use of an internet-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2012;17(6):677–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.579688.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, Luta G, Penek S, Barry S, et al. Decision making in prostate Cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med. 2013;173(18):1704–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9253.CrossRef

17.

Tomko C, Davis KM, Luta G, et al. A comparison of web-based versus print-based decision aids for prostate Cancer screening: participants’ evaluation and utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2994-7.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tomko C, Davis K, Ludin S, Krist AH, Woolf SH, Taylor KL. Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(2):189–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0301-0.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Starosta AJ, Luta G, Tomko CA, Schwartz MD, Taylor KL. Baseline attitudes about prostate cancer screening moderate the impact of decision aids on screening rates. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(5):762–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9692-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Baptista S, Heleno B, Pinto M, Guimarães B, China D, Ramos JP, Teixeira A, Taylor KL, Martins C. Prostate cancer screening decision aid translation and cultural adaptation: a qualitative study in Portugal. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e034384. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Gattellari M, Ward JE. Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2003;10:27–39.CrossRef

22.

Martinho MJ, Martins MM, Angelo M. Escala de conflito em tomadas de decisão em saúde: instrumento adaptado e validado para língua portuguesa. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2013;47(3):576–83. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-623420130000300008.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Title: Comparison of explicit values clarification method (VCM), implicit VCM and no VCM decision aids for men considering prostate cancer screening: protocol of a randomized trial
Authors: S. Baptista
B. Heleno
A. Teixeira
K. L. Taylor
C. Martins
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
PSA Screening
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1094-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Comparison of explicit values clarification method (VCM), implicit VCM and no VCM decision aids for men considering prostate cancer screening: protocol of a randomized trial

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Does health information technology improve acknowledgement of radiology results for discharged Emergency Department patients? A before and after study

Clinicians perceptions of a telemedicine system: a mixed method study of Makassar City, Indonesia

Development of a targeted client communication intervention to women using an electronic maternal and child health registry: a qualitative study

Computer-based cognitive rehabilitation program GRADIOR for mild dementia and mild cognitive impairment: new features

Nurses’ experiences and viewpoints about the benefits of adopting information technology in health care: a qualitative study in Iran

Evaluation of standard and semantically-augmented distance metrics for neurology patients