Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34617827›Full record

Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022

Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video.

Karen Scherr, Rebecca K Delaney, Peter Ubel, Valerie C Kahn, Daniel Hamstra, John T Wei, Angela Fagerlin

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Association of quantitative information and patient knowledge about prostate cancer outcomes.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2022
    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

7 authors.

Karen ScherrDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1972-6472
Rebecca K DelaneyDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1589-1374
Peter UbelStanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Valerie C KahnCenter for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Daniel HamstraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Auburn Hills, MI, USA.
John T WeiDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Angela FagerlinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.

Funding

Training / Career DevelopmentP50CA101451 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ELSTON, LAFATA J, RESNICOW, KEN A. · 2003 to 2012
$18.2M
TRAINING IN CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCHT32HL007576 · NHLBI · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Stavros George Drakos, Robin M Shaw · 1985 to 2026
$10.6M
Medical Scientist Training Program Training GrantT32GM145449 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Christopher D Kontos · 2022 to 2026
$6.6M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA101451NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007576NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM145449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRates of shared decision making (SDM) are relatively low in early stage prostate cancer decisions, as patients' values are not well integrated into a preference-sensitive treatment decision. The study objectives were to develop a SDM training video, measure usability and satisfaction, and determine the effect of the intervention on preparing patients to participate in clinical appointments.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare a plain-language decision aid (DA) to the DA plus a patient SDM training video. Patients with early stage prostate cancer completed survey measures at baseline and after reviewing the intervention materials. Survey items assessed patients' knowledge, beliefs related to SDM, and perceived readiness/intention to participate in their upcoming clinical appointment.

resultsOf those randomized to the DA + SDM video group, most participants (91%) watched the video and 93% would recommend the video to others. Participants in the DA + SDM video group, compared to the DA-only group, reported an increased desire to participate in the decision (mean = 3.65 v. 3.39,

conclusionsA novel SDM training video was accepted by patients and changed several measures associated with SDM. This may be a scalable, cost-effective way to prepare patients with early stage prostate cancer to participate in their clinical appointments.[Box: see text].

Indexed as

PhysiciansProstatic NeoplasmsDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedHumansMalePatient Participationcommunication skillsdecision aidpatient engagementprostate cancershared decision making

Identifiers

PMID34617827
PMCPMC8918874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.