Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27826660›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016

[Evaluation of the decision aid "Entscheidungshilfe Prostatakrebs" from the patients' view : Results from the first three months].

C Groeben, A Ihrig, T Hölscher, T Krones, E Kessler, S Kliesch, C Wülfing, R Koch, M P Wirth, J Huber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

C GroebenKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
A IhrigSektion Psychoonkologie, Klinik für Allgemeine Innere Medizin und Psychosomatik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
T HölscherKlinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
T KronesKlinische Ethik, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz.
E KesslerFirma ASD Concepts GmbH & Co. KG, Reinheim, Deutschland.
S KlieschCentrum für Reproduktionsmedizin und Andrologie, Abteilung für Klinische Andrologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland.
C WülfingAbteilung für Urologie, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Deutschland.
R KochInstitut für Medizinische Informatik und Biometrie, Medizinische Fakultät, TU-Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
M P WirthKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
J HuberKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. johannes.huber@uniklinikum-dresden.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe decision aid "Entscheidungshilfe Prostatakrebs" is available online free of charge since June 2016. It is designed to support patients with their treatment decision-making and to lighten the burden on their treating urologists. This study evaluates usage data from the first 3 months. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe ICHOM standard set was applied to allow a personalised presentation and to collect relevant data for subsequent counselling. Additionally, personal preferences and psychological burden were assessed amongst others. We collected anonymous data. A multivariate model evaluated predictors for high user satisfaction.

resultsFrom June through August 2016 a total of 319 patients used the decision aid, showing a continuous monthly increase in the number of users. There were n = 219 (68.7%) complete questionnaires. Median age was 66.1 ± 8.0 years. The oncological risk was low in 30.3%, intermediate in 43.6% and high in 26.1%. A majority of 57.5% used the decision aid together with their partner, 35.1% alone and 5.5% with their children. In all, 54.8% were "very satisfied" and 32.0% were "satisfied" with the decision aid for a total satisfaction rate of about 87%. The only predictors of total satisfaction were the usage mode and reported distress level.

conclusionsAs shown by the continuously increasing number of users this decision aid is becoming well established in German urology. Patients' overall ratings are very positive. The majority of patients use the decision aid with their partner. This represents a significant advantage of a multimedia approach compared to print media.

Indexed as

AgedDecision Support Systems, ClinicalGermanyHumansMaleOnline SystemsPatient-Centered CarePatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionPilot ProjectsProstatic NeoplasmsUtilization ReviewDecision aidHealth services researchInternetProstate cancerUrology

Identifiers

PMID27826660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.