Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36844795›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2023

Taking shared decision making for prostate cancer to the next level: Requirements for a Dutch treatment decision aid with personalized risks on side effects.

Laura M J Hochstenbach, Domino Determann, Rianne R R Fijten, Esther J Bloemen-van Gurp, Renée Verwey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Associations of Content and Context of Communication with Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

5 authors.

Laura M J HochstenbachCenter of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Domino DetermannPATIENT+, Zeestraat 76, 2518 AD Den Haag, the Netherlands.
Rianne R R FijtenDepartment of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Esther J Bloemen-van GurpCenter of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Renée VerweyCenter of Expertise for Innovative Care and Technology (EIZT), School of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 550, 6400 AN Heerlen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Different curative treatment modalities need to be considered in case of localized prostate cancer, all comparable in terms of survival and recurrence though different in side effects. To better inform patients and support shared decision making, the development of a web-based patient decision aid including personalized risk information was proposed. This paper reports on requirements in terms of content of information, visualization of risk profiles, and use in practice. Methods: Based on a Dutch 10-step guide about the setup of a decision aid next to a practice guideline, an iterative and co-creative design process was followed. In collaboration with various groups of experts (health professionals, usability and linguistic experts, patients and the general public), research and development activities were continuously alternated. Results: Content requirements focused on presenting information only about conventional treatments and main side effects; based on risk group; and including clear explanations about personalized risks. Visual requirements involved presenting general and personalized risks separately; through bar charts or icon arrays; and along with numbers or words, and legends. Organizational requirements included integration into local clinical pathways; agreement about information input and output; and focus on patients' numeracy and graph literacy skills. Conclusions: The iterative and co-creative development process was challenging, though extremely valuable. The translation of requirements resulted in a decision aid about four conventional treatment options, including general or personalized risks for erection, urinary and intestinal problems that are communicated with icon arrays and numbers. Future implementation and validation studies need to inform about use and value in practice.

Indexed as

Patient decision aidPersonalized medicineProstate cancerShared decision makingUser centered design

Identifiers

PMID36844795
PMCPMC9945792

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.