Effects of a smartphone application named "Shared Decision Making Assistant" for informed patients with primary liver cancer in decision-making in China: a quasi-experimental study.
Decision aids
Decision-making
Patient
Primary liver cancer
Smartphone application
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 05 2022
31 05 2022
Historique:
received:
08
12
2021
accepted:
16
05
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
3
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is well known that decision aids can promote patients' participation in decision-making, increase patients' decision preparation and reduce decision conflict. The goal of this study is to explore the effects of a "Shared Decision Making Assistant" smartphone application on the decision-making of informed patients with Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) in China. In this quasi-experimental study , 180 PLC patients who knew their real diagnoses in the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China, from April to December 2020 were randomly assigned to a control group and an intervention group. Patients in the intervention group had an access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" application in decision-making, which included primary liver cancer treatment knowledge, decision aids path, continuing nursing care video clips, latest information browsing and interactive platforms. The study used decision conflict scores to evaluate the primary outcome, and the data of decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, decision satisfaction and regret, and knowledge of PLC treatment for secondary outcomes. Then, the data were entered into the SPSS 22.0 software and were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Chi-square, independent t-test, paired t-test, and Mann-Whitney tests. Informed PLC patients in the intervention group ("SDM Assistant" group) had significantly lower decision conflict scores than those in the control group. ("SDM Assistant" group: 16.89 ± 8.80 vs. control group: 26.75 ± 9.79, P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the decision preparation score (80.73 ± 8.16), decision self-efficacy score (87.75 ± 6.87), decision satisfaction score (25.68 ± 2.10) and knowledge of PLC treatment score (14.52 ± 1.91) of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group patients (P < 0.05) at the end of the study. However, the scores of "regret of decision making" between the two groups had no statistical significance after 3 months (P > 0.05). Access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" enhanced the PLC patients' performance and improved their quality of decision making in the areas of decision conflict, decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, knowledge of PLC treatment and satisfaction. Therefore, we recommend promoting and updating the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" in clinical employment and future studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
It is well known that decision aids can promote patients' participation in decision-making, increase patients' decision preparation and reduce decision conflict. The goal of this study is to explore the effects of a "Shared Decision Making Assistant" smartphone application on the decision-making of informed patients with Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) in China.
METHODS
In this quasi-experimental study , 180 PLC patients who knew their real diagnoses in the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China, from April to December 2020 were randomly assigned to a control group and an intervention group. Patients in the intervention group had an access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" application in decision-making, which included primary liver cancer treatment knowledge, decision aids path, continuing nursing care video clips, latest information browsing and interactive platforms. The study used decision conflict scores to evaluate the primary outcome, and the data of decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, decision satisfaction and regret, and knowledge of PLC treatment for secondary outcomes. Then, the data were entered into the SPSS 22.0 software and were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Chi-square, independent t-test, paired t-test, and Mann-Whitney tests.
RESULTS
Informed PLC patients in the intervention group ("SDM Assistant" group) had significantly lower decision conflict scores than those in the control group. ("SDM Assistant" group: 16.89 ± 8.80 vs. control group: 26.75 ± 9.79, P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the decision preparation score (80.73 ± 8.16), decision self-efficacy score (87.75 ± 6.87), decision satisfaction score (25.68 ± 2.10) and knowledge of PLC treatment score (14.52 ± 1.91) of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group patients (P < 0.05) at the end of the study. However, the scores of "regret of decision making" between the two groups had no statistical significance after 3 months (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" enhanced the PLC patients' performance and improved their quality of decision making in the areas of decision conflict, decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, knowledge of PLC treatment and satisfaction. Therefore, we recommend promoting and updating the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" in clinical employment and future studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35641979
doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01883-w
pii: 10.1186/s12911-022-01883-w
pmc: PMC9152304
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
145Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Can J Nurs Res. 1996 Fall;28(3):13-27
pubmed: 8997937
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Nov 11;7(11):e15313
pubmed: 31710300
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2020 Aug;7(4):746-759
pubmed: 31997285
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Nov 2;113(11):1523-1530
pubmed: 33871631
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Mar;17(3):738-43
pubmed: 20039216
Psychooncology. 2019 Apr;28(4):702-709
pubmed: 30548890
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 28;3:CD011650
pubmed: 28351116
Support Care Cancer. 2019 May;27(5):1613-1637
pubmed: 30737578
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jan 9;19(1):6
pubmed: 30626400
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 May 14;20(1):91
pubmed: 32408909
Support Care Cancer. 2011 Aug;19(8):1191-5
pubmed: 20628766
Comput Inform Nurs. 2021 Jun 3;39(12):984-991
pubmed: 34081659
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431
pubmed: 28402085
Chin J Cancer Res. 2018 Dec;30(6):571-579
pubmed: 30700925
Intern Med J. 2021 Jun;51(6):891-895
pubmed: 32358924
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 26;20(6):e228
pubmed: 29945857
Patient Educ Couns. 2022 May;105(5):1057-1065
pubmed: 34538465
Circ Heart Fail. 2019 Oct;12(10):e005619
pubmed: 31601115
Med Decis Making. 1996 Jan-Mar;16(1):58-64
pubmed: 8717600
JMIR Res Protoc. 2017 Nov 16;6(11):e225
pubmed: 29146565
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 1;36(7):659-666
pubmed: 29364772
J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 Jan-Feb;31(1):64-72
pubmed: 29330241
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Apr;61(1):92-8
pubmed: 16533681
Med Decis Making. 1995 Jan-Mar;15(1):25-30
pubmed: 7898294
Int J Med Inform. 2021 Dec;156:104598
pubmed: 34624662
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jan;78(1):130-3
pubmed: 19560303
BMJ Open. 2021 Nov 2;11(11):e045526
pubmed: 34728438
CA Cancer J Clin. 2008 Sep-Oct;58(5):293-304
pubmed: 18755939
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 11;380(15):1450-1462
pubmed: 30970190
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Nov;29(11):6929-6941
pubmed: 33834302
J Am Coll Surg. 2021 Sep;233(3):337-345
pubmed: 34102279
Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug;23(4):281-92
pubmed: 12926578
Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Mar;103(3):661-669
pubmed: 31676101
Diabetes Ther. 2018 Apr;9(2):803-814
pubmed: 29536425
Cancer Lett. 2018 Jan 1;412:283-288
pubmed: 29050983