Efficient development and usability testing of decision support interventions for older women with breast cancer.

breast cancer decision support older patients patient decision aids shared decision-making

Journal

Patient preference and adherence
ISSN: 1177-889X
Titre abrégé: Patient Prefer Adherence
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101475748

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
entrez: 26 1 2019
pubmed: 27 1 2019
medline: 27 1 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Around one-third of breast cancers diagnosed every year in the UK are in women aged ≥70 years. However, there are currently no decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women who have a choice between primary endocrine therapy and surgery followed by adjuvant endocrine therapy (surgery+endocrine therapy), or who can choose whether or not to have chemotherapy following surgery. There is also little evidence-based guidance specifically on the management of these older patients. A large UK cohort study is currently underway to address this lack of evidence and to develop two DESIs to facilitate shared decision-making with older women about breast cancer treatments. Here, we present the development and initial testing of these two DESIs. An initial prototype DESI was developed for the choice of primary endocrine therapy or surgery+endocrine therapy. Semi-structured interviews with healthy volunteers and patients explored DESI acceptability, usability, and utility. A framework approach was used for analysis. A second DESI for the choice of having chemotherapy or not was subsequently developed based on more focused development and testing. Participants (n=22, aged 75-94 years, 64% healthy volunteers, 36% patients) found the primary endocrine therapy /surgery+endocrine therapy DESI acceptable, and contributed to improved wording and illustrations to address misunderstandings. The chemotherapy DESI (tested with 14 participants, aged 70-87 years, 57% healthy volunteers, 43% patients) was mostly understandable, however, suggestions for rewording sections were made. Most participants considered the DESIs helpful, but highlighted the importance of complementary discussions with clinicians. It was possible to use a template DESI to efficiently create a second prototype for a different treatment option (chemotherapy). Both DESIs were acceptable and considered helpful to support/augment consultations. Development of acceptable additional DESIs for similar target populations using simplified methods may be an efficient way to develop future DESIs. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of the DESIs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Around one-third of breast cancers diagnosed every year in the UK are in women aged ≥70 years. However, there are currently no decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women who have a choice between primary endocrine therapy and surgery followed by adjuvant endocrine therapy (surgery+endocrine therapy), or who can choose whether or not to have chemotherapy following surgery. There is also little evidence-based guidance specifically on the management of these older patients. A large UK cohort study is currently underway to address this lack of evidence and to develop two DESIs to facilitate shared decision-making with older women about breast cancer treatments. Here, we present the development and initial testing of these two DESIs.
METHODS METHODS
An initial prototype DESI was developed for the choice of primary endocrine therapy or surgery+endocrine therapy. Semi-structured interviews with healthy volunteers and patients explored DESI acceptability, usability, and utility. A framework approach was used for analysis. A second DESI for the choice of having chemotherapy or not was subsequently developed based on more focused development and testing.
RESULTS RESULTS
Participants (n=22, aged 75-94 years, 64% healthy volunteers, 36% patients) found the primary endocrine therapy /surgery+endocrine therapy DESI acceptable, and contributed to improved wording and illustrations to address misunderstandings. The chemotherapy DESI (tested with 14 participants, aged 70-87 years, 57% healthy volunteers, 43% patients) was mostly understandable, however, suggestions for rewording sections were made. Most participants considered the DESIs helpful, but highlighted the importance of complementary discussions with clinicians.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
It was possible to use a template DESI to efficiently create a second prototype for a different treatment option (chemotherapy). Both DESIs were acceptable and considered helpful to support/augment consultations. Development of acceptable additional DESIs for similar target populations using simplified methods may be an efficient way to develop future DESIs. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of the DESIs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30679905
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S178347
pii: ppa-13-131
pmc: PMC6338238
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

131-143

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1209-10071
Pays : United Kingdom

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Références

BMJ. 2000 Oct 21;321(7267):992-3
pubmed: 11039965
Br J Surg. 2003 Apr;90(4):388-99
pubmed: 12673739
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004 Jul;51(1):69-80
pubmed: 15207255
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Apr 20;23(12):2716-25
pubmed: 15837986
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2006 Sep;10(4):263-72
pubmed: 16376146
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD004272
pubmed: 16437480
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2009 Mar;21(2):99-102
pubmed: 19200920
PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705
pubmed: 19259269
Lancet. 2012 Feb 4;379(9814):432-44
pubmed: 22152853
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Aug;88(2):256-61
pubmed: 22465484
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Apr;13(4):e148-60
pubmed: 22469125
Ann Oncol. 2013 May;24(5):1211-9
pubmed: 23334117
Psychooncology. 2013 Dec;22(12):2729-35
pubmed: 23813806
Med Decis Making. 2014 Aug;34(6):699-710
pubmed: 23963501
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jun;40(6):676-84
pubmed: 24703110
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2014 Nov;26(11):692-6
pubmed: 24909701
Psychooncology. 2015 Aug;24(8):878-84
pubmed: 25534045
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 May;41(5):607-9
pubmed: 25725950
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015 Jun 10;15:45
pubmed: 26058557
Br J Surg. 2015 Aug;102(9):1056-63
pubmed: 26095684
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Apr 21;16:45
pubmed: 27098100
Psychooncology. 2017 Dec;26(12):2094-2100
pubmed: 28332254
BMJ. 2017 Apr 18;357:j1744
pubmed: 28420639
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 31;7(7):e015133
pubmed: 28760787

Auteurs

Kate J Lifford (KJ)

Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, liffordkj@cardiff.ac.uk.

Adrian Edwards (A)

Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, liffordkj@cardiff.ac.uk.

Maria Burton (M)

Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.

Helena Harder (H)

Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Fiona Armitage (F)

Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Jenna L Morgan (JL)

Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Lisa Caldon (L)

Department of General Surgery, The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham, UK.

Kirsty Balachandran (K)

Department of Medical Oncology, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Alistair Ring (A)

Breast Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK.

Karen Collins (K)

Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.

Malcolm Reed (M)

Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.

Lynda Wyld (L)

Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Kate Brain (K)

Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, liffordkj@cardiff.ac.uk.

Classifications MeSH