Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31714037›Full record

Trial reportCancer medicine2020

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention for low risk prostate cancer patients.

Jeffrey Belkora, June M Chan, Matthew R Cooperberg, John Neuhaus, Lauren Stupar, Tia Weinberg, Jeanette M Broering, Imelda Tenggara, Janet E Cowan, Stan Rosenfeld and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeffrey BelkoraInstitute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0719-4325
June M ChanDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
John NeuhausDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Lauren StuparInstitute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Tia WeinbergInstitute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jeanette M BroeringDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Imelda TenggaraDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Janet E CowanDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Stan RosenfeldDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Stacey A KenfieldDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Erin L Van BlariganDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jeffry P SimkoDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
John WitteDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Peter R CarrollDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDevelopment and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early-stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation.

methodsWe developed a decision aid featuring long-term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI-PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI-PC: How many men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: "Most will die of something else" and "A little or not at all."

resultsThe development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi-square test).

conclusionsThe intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPatient Education as TopicPilot ProjectsProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentSurveys and Questionnairesbehavioral sciencecancer educationethical considerationsprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID31714037
PMCPMC6943165
OpenAlexW2986643596

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.