Range, effectiveness, and implementation of decision aids supporting cancer survivors’ decisions over health services participation in the post-treatment phase: A systematic review.

Abstract

203 Background: Cancer patients and survivors encounter a myriad of complex medical decisions starting from their diagnosis of cancer. However, current decision aids (DAs) largely focused on acute treatment and fertility decisions, and not on health service-related decisions such as adoption of supportive care services and programs targeting risk factor modification. This systematic review aims to identify and describe DAs supporting health service-related decisions after the completion of primary treatment until the end of life. Secondary objectives included assessing the effectiveness of these DAs and outlining implementation barriers. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched comprehensively for relevant publications in English from inception through April 2020. Additional manual searches were performed on Google Scholar and from reference lists. We included studies that described the purpose and usage of DAs related to health services among cancer survivors 6 months post-diagnosis, after the typical acute treatment phase. Depending on the study design, included studies were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. Results: Of 896 records screened, 11 studies describing seven DAs met the inclusion criteria. Non-interventional studies were generally of good quality, whereas most (4/6) interventional trials had a high risk of detection bias from failure to blind outcome assessors. DAs described were purposed for the creation of advanced directives, substance use behavior, preference for post-treatment follow-up care schedule, and health insurance were identified. All DAs adopted a multimedia format. DAs were generally acceptable and were associated with higher knowledge and satisfaction among users. No significant effects were observed for decision-making related outcomes, including decisional conflict and self-efficacy. Implementation barriers included time constraints, poor health statuses, limited perceived DA’s usefulness, and inadequate navigational support. Conclusions: The seven DAs identified addressed a diverse range of survivorship issues. Building on preliminary results reporting favorable acceptability, satisfaction, and knowledge, future work should explore the development and utility of DAs as facilitators to quality cancer survivorship care delivery, expanding into areas such as health promotion and choice of survivorship follow-up care models.