PD09-07 THE IMPACT OF SHARED DECISION MAKING SOFTWARE ON DECISIONAL QUALITY OF MEN UNDERGOING TREATMENT FOR BPH: AN INTERIM ANALYSIS

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making II1 Apr 2017PD09-07 THE IMPACT OF SHARED DECISION MAKING SOFTWARE ON DECISIONAL QUALITY OF MEN UNDERGOING TREATMENT FOR BPH: AN INTERIM ANALYSIS Matthew Pollard, Joseph Shirk, Casey Pagan, Sylvia Lambrechts, Lorna Kwan, and Christopher Saigal Matthew PollardMatthew Pollard More articles by this author , Joseph ShirkJoseph Shirk More articles by this author , Casey PaganCasey Pagan More articles by this author , Sylvia LambrechtsSylvia Lambrechts More articles by this author , Lorna KwanLorna Kwan More articles by this author , and Christopher SaigalChristopher Saigal More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.557AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Shared decision making (SDM) allows patients and physicians to develop a treatment plan together by thoroughly exploring clinical risks and benefits in the setting of patient-specific values and concerns. This method of counseling can help to reduce decisional conflict, which has been identified as an indicator of decisional quality. Using novel SDM software, we aimed to examine the impact of shared decision making interventions on decisional conflict in patients seeking treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS All new patients evaluated for BPH were offered SDM software before their initial urologic visit either in person or by phone. Willing participants utilized the software at home or in the waiting area prior to their visit. The software provides education, preference assessment for relevant outcomes, and personalized decision analysis for the patient. A report from the software is sent to the counseling urologist and the patient. Following consultation with a urologist, patients completed a follow up questionnaire measuring disease-specific knowledge, satisfaction with care, and decisional conflict using the validated SURE scale (SURE=4, high decisional quality; SURE= 0-3, low decisional quality). Questionnaire results were compared to baseline data collected from patients who did not receive the SDM module. RESULTS Data was available for 35 men in the SDM pilot group and 103 men from the control group. They were well matched in demographics and health literacy. Among all participants, significantly fewer men in the SDM group felt unsure regarding treatment options (12% vs 37%, p = 0.0059) and were more likely to have made a shared decision (SDM score 1.87 vs 2.19, p=0.0503). There was no significant difference in overall SURE score between control and pilot study participants (3.0 vs 2.7, p=0.3). Among participants who reported some decisional conflict (n=76), SDM pilot study participants were more likely to report adequate support to make a treatment choice than the control participants (82% vs 57%, p = 0.0564). CONCLUSIONS Our interim analysis of a novel SDM intervention for men with BPH shows an improvement in understanding treatment options and shared decision making. The SDM software provided additional support among those patients who felt some decision conflict after their initial consultation. These differences may become more significant as we accrue more pilot-study patients. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e196-e197 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Matthew Pollard More articles by this author Joseph Shirk More articles by this author Casey Pagan More articles by this author Sylvia Lambrechts More articles by this author Lorna Kwan More articles by this author Christopher Saigal More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...