Preparation For Decision Making Scale Research Articles

Developing a Web-Based Shared Decision-Making Tool for Fertility Preservation Among Reproductive-Age Women With Breast Cancer: An Action Research Approach.

BackgroundThe pregnancy rate after cancer treatment for female survivors is lower than that of the general population. Future infertility is a significant concern for patients with breast cancer and is associated with a poor quality of life. Reproductive-age patients with breast cancer have safe options when choosing a type of fertility preservation method to be applied. Better information and support resources aimed at women to support their decision making are needed.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a web-based shared decision-making tool for helping patients with breast cancer make decisions on fertility preservation.MethodsWe used the action research cycle of observing, reflecting, planning, and acting to develop a web-based shared decision-making tool. The following four phrases were applied: (1) observe and reflect—collect and analyze the decision-making experiences of patients and health care providers; (2) reflect and plan—apply the initial results to create a paper design and modify the content; (3) plan and act—brainstorm about the web pages and modify the content; (4) act and observe—evaluate the effectiveness and refine the website’s shared decision-making tool. Interviews, group meetings, and constant dialogue were conducted between the various participants at each step. Effectiveness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision-Making scale.ResultsFive major parts were developed with the use of the action research approach. The Introduction (part 1) describes the severity of cancer treatment and infertility. Options (part 2) provides the knowledge of fertility preservation. The shared decision-making tool was designed as a step-by-step process (part 3) that involves the comparison of options, patient values, and preferences; their knowledge regarding infertility and options; and reaching a collective decision. Resources (part 4) provides information on the hospitals that provide such services, and References (part 5) lists all the literature cited in the website. The results show the web-based shared decision-making meets both patients’ and health providers’ needs and helps reproductive-age patients with breast cancer make decisions about fertility preservation.ConclusionsWe have created the first web-based shared decision-making tool for making fertility preservation decisions in Taiwan. We believe female patients of reproductive age will find the tool useful and its use will become widespread, which should increase patient autonomy and improve communication about fertility preservation with clinicians.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04602910; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04602910

Internet and decision-making regarding health among pregnant woman: cross-cultural adaptation of a questionnaire for use in Brazil.

The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Women's Use of the Internet in Pregnancy Questionnaire (WUIPQ) to Brazilian Portuguese and analyze the psychometric properties of the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS). This study consisted of the following steps: translation, synthesis, back-translation, evaluation by the author of the original questionnaire, review by the panel of experts, and pretest of the WUIPQ. For such, Brazilian pregnant women and mothers who were members of Facebook groups participated in the study. We measured test-retest reliability as well as internal consistency and performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the B-PDMS. In the pretest, 88.14% of the participants considered the items of the B-WUIPQ to be clear and pertinent, and 84.09% rated the sequence and organization of the questionnaire as excellent/good. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the B-PDMS were 0.850 (95%CI: 0.791-0.899) and 0.91, respectively. CFA revealed factor loadings higher than 0.70 for most items, with a comparative fit index of 0.989, Tucker-Lewis index of 0.984, and root mean square error of approximation of 0.08 (95%CI: 0.06-0.09). The B-WUIPQ presented cross-cultural adapted, and the B-PDMS demonstrated satisfactory psychometric proprieties to Brazilian pregnant women.

Efficacy of a patient decision aid for improving person-centered decision-making by older adults with obstructive sleep apnea.

Person-centered obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) care is a collaborative approach that is respectful of an individual's health priorities. Informed decision-making is essential to person-centered care, especially as patients age. In a feasibility study, we evaluated the effects of a new decision aid (Decide2Rest) on OSA treatment decision-making in older adults. Patients (aged ≥ 60 years) with newly diagnosed OSA were recruited from two health care systems and randomized either to Decide2Rest or to a control program. Postintervention outcomes included 1) Decisional Conflict Scale (0-100, where 0 = low and 100 = high conflict), which measures perceptions of uncertainty, whether decisions reflect what matters most to patients, and whether patients feel supported in decision-making; 2) Preparation for Decision-Making scale (0-100, where 0 = least and 100 most prepared); and 3) OSA knowledge (0-100, where 0 = poor and 100 = outstanding). Multivariable linear regression models examined relationships between Decide2Rest and outcomes (Decisional Conflict Scale, Preparation for Decision-Making, OSA knowledge). Seventy-three patients were randomized to Decide2Rest (n = 36; mean age, 69 years; 72% male) vs control (n = 37; mean age, 69 years; 70% male). Results from the regressions, controlling for study site, indicate that the Decide2Rest program resulted in less decisional conflict (20.5 vs 32.7 on the Decisional Conflict Scale; P = .014), more preparedness for decision-making (87.8 vs 66.2 on the Preparation for Decision-Making scale; P < .001), and greater OSA knowledge (75.1 vs 65.3 OSA knowledge score; P = .04) scores than in the control group. The Decide2Rest program promotes person-centered OSA decision-making for older patients with newly diagnosed OSA. Future studies are needed to optimize implementation of the program. Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Name: Improving Older Adults' Decision-Making for OSAT (eDecide2Rest); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03138993; Identifier: NCT03138993.

Patient Decision Aid (PDA) for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Reduces Decisional Conflict and Improves Readiness for Treatment Decision Making.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to develop and assess the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (PDA) to support treatment decision making in Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who fail to achieve the therapeutic goal with the current disease-modifying antirheumatic treatment strategy.MethodsThe PDA was developed in accordance with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards recommendations. A steering group led the project. Three literature reviews and two focus groups were performed to develop the PDA prototype. To check its comprehensibility, acceptability, and feasibility, alpha-testing was performed using the Decision Support Acceptability Scale (DSAS). Beta-testing was conducted to assess preliminary evidence of PDA efficacy using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after PDA use. Readiness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS).ResultsThe PDA included (1) a brief description of RA, (2) treatment information, and (3) a values clarification section. Alpha-testing revealed that most patients considered that the information was presented in a good or excellent way and it could help clarify their values and facilitate treatment decision making. Most rheumatologists agreed that the PDA was easy to understand, to use, and allowed them to reach a shared decision. Beta-testing showed that PDA significantly reduced overall patients’ decisional conflict [33.2 (DE: 21.4) vs 24.6 (23.5); p < 0.001] and prepared the patient for decision making [PDMS: 67.5 (21.0)].ConclusionsWe developed a PDA for Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe RA that reduces patients’ decisional conflict and increases their readiness for decision making. The use of this PDA in routine clinical practice may improve the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choices made.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-019-00381-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of aprostate cancer E‑health tutorial : Development and testing of the website prostata-information.ch

Due to the multitude of therapy options, the treatment decision after diagnosis of localized prostate cancer is challenging. Compared to printed booklets, web-based information technology offers more possibilities to tailor information to patients' individual needs. To support the decision-making process as well as the communication with patients, we developed an online tutorial in asystematic process in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and then tested it in apilot study. The study investigated users' satisfaction, the coverage of information needs, the preparation for decision making, and the subjective quality of the decision. Based on already existing information material, the online tutorial was developed in an iterative process using focus groups with patients and urologists. For the following evaluation in eight clinics atotal of 87patients were invited to access the platform and participate in the study. Of these patients, 56 used the tutorial and 48 answered both surveys (the first one 4weeks after the first login and the second one 3months after treatment decision). The surveys used the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS), the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), and the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). Satisfaction with the tutorial is very high among patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. Users find their information needs sufficiently covered. Three months after the decision they felt that they were well prepared for the decision making (mean PDMS75, standard deviation [SD]23), they had low decisional conflict (mean DCS9.6, SD11), and almost no decisional regret (mean DRS6.4, SD9.6). Based on these findings, further use of the tutorial can be recommended.