Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31278659›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2020

Introducing Decision Aids into Routine Prostate Cancer Care in The Netherlands: Implementation and Patient Evaluations from the Multi-regional JIPPA Initiative.

Maarten Cuypers, Hoda H M Al-Itejawi, Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan, Peep F M Stalmeier, Romy E D Lamers, Inge M van Oort, Diederik M Somford, Reindert Jeroen A van Moorselaar, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse and 2 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021
    Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Maarten CuypersDepartment of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. Maarten.Cuypers@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1715-4375
Hoda H M Al-ItejawiDepartment of Urology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cornelia F van Uden-KraanDepartment of Clinical Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peep F M StalmeierRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Romy E D LamersDepartment of Urology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Inge M van OortDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Diederik M SomfordDepartment of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Reindert Jeroen A van MoorselaarDepartment of Urology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Irma M Verdonck-de LeeuwDepartment of Clinical Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseCoRPS-Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Julia J van Tol-GeerdinkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marieke de VriesInstitute for Computing and Information Sciences (iCIS) & Social and Cultural Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uptake of decision aids (DAs) in daily routine is low, resulting in limited knowledge about successful DA implementation at a large scale. We assessed implementation rates after multi-regional implementation of three different prostate cancer (PCa) treatment DAs and patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to use a DA. Thirty-three hospitals implemented one out of the three DAs in routine care. Implementation rates for each DA were calculated per hospital. After deciding about PCa treatment, patients (n = 1033) completed a survey on pre-formulated barriers and facilitators to use a DA. Overall DA implementation was 40%. For each DA alike, implementation within hospitals varied from incidental (< 10% of eligible patients receiving a DA) to high rates of implementation (> 80%). All three DAs were evaluated positively by patients, although concise and paper DAs yielded higher satisfaction scores compared with an elaborate online DA. Patients were most satisfied when they received the DA within a week after diagnosis. Pre-formulated barriers to DA usage were experienced by less than 10% of the patients, and most patients confirmed the facilitators. Many patients received a DA during treatment counseling, although a wide variation in uptake across hospitals was observed for each DA. Most patients were satisfied with the DA they received. Sustained implementation of DAs in clinical routine requires further encouragement and attention.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHealth Plan ImplementationAgedHumansMaleNeeds AssessmentNetherlandsPatient ParticipationProstatic NeoplasmsSurveys and QuestionnairesDecision aidsImplementationOncologyProstate cancerShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID31278659
PMCPMC7679359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.