Frosch, Dominick L.

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

AbstractObjectivesThe objective was to describe perceptions of practicing emergency physicians (EPs) regarding the appropriateness and medicolegal implications of using shared decision‐making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe conducted a cross‐sectional survey of EPs at a large, national professional meeting to assess perceived appropriateness of SDM for different categories of ED management (e.g., diagnostic testing, treatment, disposition) and in common clinical scenarios (e.g., low‐risk chest pain, syncope, minor head injury). A 21‐item survey instrument was iteratively developed through review by content experts, cognitive testing, and pilot testing. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were conducted.ResultsWe approached 737 EPs; 709 (96%) completed the survey. Two‐thirds (67.8%) of respondents were male; 51% practiced in an academic setting and 44% in the community. Of the seven management decision categories presented, SDM was reported to be most frequently appropriate for deciding on invasive procedures (71.5%), computed tomography (CT) scanning (56.7%), and post‐ED disposition (56.3%). Among the specific clinical scenarios, use of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke was felt to be most frequently appropriate for SDM (83.4%), followed by lumbar puncture to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage (73.8%) and CT head for pediatric minor head injury (69.9%). Most EPs (66.8%) felt that using and documenting SDM would decrease their medicolegal risk while a minority (14.2%) felt that it would increase their risk.ConclusionsAcceptance of SDM among EPs appears to be strong across management categories (diagnostic testing, treatment, and disposition) and in a variety of clinical scenarios. SDM is perceived by most EPs to be medicolegally protective.

This article provides an analysis of ‘decision aids’, interventions to support patients facing tough decisions. Interest has increased since the concept of shared decision making has become widely considered to be a means of achieving desirable clinical outcomes. We consider the aims of these interventions and examine assumptions about their use. We propose three categories, interventions that are used in face-to-face encounters, those designed for use outside clinical encounters and those which are mediated, using telephone or other communication media. We propose the following definition: decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options, by considering relevantattributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate and long-term outcomes which have relevant consequences, in ways which help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making, appropriate to their individual situation. Although quality standards have been published for these interventions, we are also cautious about premature closure and consider that the need for short versions for use inside clinical encounters and long versions for external use requires further research. More work is also needed on the use of narrative formats and the translation of theory into practical designs. The interest in decision support interventions for patients heralds a transformation in clinical practice although many important areas remain unresolved.