Development of a Generic Decision Guide for Patients in Oncology: a Qualitative Interview Study

Overview

Journal BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Medical Informatics

Date 2025 Mar 11

PMID 40065302

Authors

Lia Schilling

Jana Kaden

Isabel Ban

Birte Berger-Hoger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Many patients with cancer want to be involved in healthcare decisions. For adequate participation, awareness of one's own desires and preferences and sufficient knowledge about medical measures are indispensable. In order to support patient participation, a decision guide for patients with cancer was developed as part of a larger project called TARGET, which specifically aims to improve the care of patients with rare cancer.

Methods: The development of the decision guide took place from 08.2022 to 03.2023. The decision guide is a single component of a complex intervention that aims to facilitate decision support in cancer care for patients. For the development, existing development and evaluation studies of Question Prompt Lists (QPLs) were identified through systematic literature searches in the MEDLINE via PubMed, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases. The decision guide was pre-tested for feasibility, usability, completeness and acceptance with the target groups through guided individual interviews. Sociodemographic data were collected anonymously. An expert review was conducted. The verbatim transcribed interviews were analysed using content analysis according to Kuckartz with MAXQDA. The guide has been iteratively optimized based on the results.

Results: A generic decision guide for patients with cancer for diagnostic or treatment decisions was developed in both PDF web-based formats, based on the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide. It was supplemented with decision-related questions from QPLs for patients with cancer. The pre-test comprised seven expert reviews of (psych)oncologists and experts in evidence-based health information and ten interviews with cancer patients (n = 7), family relatives (n = 2), and one caregiver. The results were coded into nine main categories. The results indicated a good feasibility, usability and acceptability of the guide. The tool was perceived as comprehensive and appropriate. Individual elements were identified as modifiable for better comprehensibility. The target audience appreciated the decision guide as a good support option.

Conclusion: The decision guide is potentially a useful support option for patients with cancer facing medical decisions in their further course of treatment. In the TARGET project, it will be made available to patients and can be supplemented with decision coaching. Further steps for implementation into healthcare structures are necessary.

Clinical Trial Number: Not applicable.

References

Henselmans I, van Laarhoven H, van Maarschalkerweerd P, de Haes H, Dijkgraaf M, Sommeijer D . Effect of a Skills Training for Oncologists and a Patient Communication Aid on Shared Decision Making About Palliative Systemic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Oncologist. 2020; 25(3):e578-e588. PMC: 7066716. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0453. View

Charles C, Gafni A . The vexing problem of defining the meaning, role and measurement of values in treatment decision-making. J Comp Eff Res. 2014; 3(2):197-209. DOI: 10.2217/cer.13.91. View

Jull J, Kopke S, Smith M, Carley M, Finderup J, Rahn A . Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 11:CD013385. PMC: 8575556. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013385.pub2. View

Joseph-Williams N, Elwyn G, Edwards A . Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2013; 94(3):291-309. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.031. View

Moloczij N, Krishnasamy M, Butow P, Hack T, Stafford L, Jefford M . Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of audio-recordings and question prompt lists in cancer care consultations: A qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017; 100(6):1083-1091. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.01.005. View

Bruera E, Sweeney C, Willey J, Palmer J, Tolley S, Rosales M . Breast cancer patient perception of the helpfulness of a prompt sheet versus a general information sheet during outpatient consultation: a randomized, controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003; 25(5):412-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00686-3. View

Eggly S, Hamel L, Foster T, Albrecht T, Chapman R, Harper F . Randomized trial of a question prompt list to increase patient active participation during interactions with black patients and their oncologists. Patient Educ Couns. 2017; 100(5):818-826. PMC: 5400698. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.12.026. View

Brom L, Hopmans W, Pasman H, Timmermans D, Widdershoven G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B . Congruence between patients' preferred and perceived participation in medical decision-making: a review of the literature. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014; 14:25. PMC: 3992143. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-14-25. View

Berger Z, Tung M, Yesantharao P, Zhou A, Blackford A, Smith T . Feasibility and perception of a question prompt list in outpatient cancer care. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019; 3(1):53. PMC: 6695465. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-019-0145-y. View

10.

Barton E, Moore T, Hamel L, Penner L, Albrecht T, Eggly S . The influence of a question prompt list on patient-oncologist information exchange in an African-American population. Patient Educ Couns. 2019; 103(3):505-513. PMC: 7720840. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.020. View

11.

Hinneburg J, Zacher S, Berger-Hoger B, Berger-Thurmel K, Kratzer V, Steckelberg A . Enhancing Transsectoral Interdisciplinary Patient-Centered Care for Patients With Rare Cancers: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Process Evaluation. JMIR Res Protoc. 2023; 12:e49731. PMC: 10603554. DOI: 10.2196/49731. View

12.

Terrasson J, Rault A, Dolbeault S, Bredart A . Question prompt lists to improve communication between cancer patients and healthcare professionals. Curr Opin Oncol. 2022; 34(4):265-269. DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000840. View

13.

Brown R, Butow P, Wilson-Genderson M, Bernhard J, Ribi K, Juraskova I . Meeting the decision-making preferences of patients with breast cancer in oncology consultations: impact on decision-related outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(8):857-62. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.7952. View

14.

Stacey D, Legare F, Boland L, Lewis K, Loiselle M, Hoefel L . 20th Anniversary Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 3 Overview of Systematic Reviews and Updated Framework. Med Decis Making. 2020; 40(3):379-398. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20911870. View

15.

Brown R, Butow P, Boyer M, Tattersall M . Promoting patient participation in the cancer consultation: evaluation of a prompt sheet and coaching in question-asking. Br J Cancer. 1999; 80(1-2):242-8. PMC: 2363012. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690346. View

16.

Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T . Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44(5):681-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3. View

17.

Shirai Y, Fujimori M, Ogawa A, Yamada Y, Nishiwaki Y, Ohtsu A . Patients' perception of the usefulness of a question prompt sheet for advanced cancer patients when deciding the initial treatment: a randomized, controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2011; 21(7):706-13. DOI: 10.1002/pon.1955. View

18.

Ferron Parayre A, Labrecque M, Rousseau M, Turcotte S, Legare F . Validation of SURE, a four-item clinical checklist for detecting decisional conflict in patients. Med Decis Making. 2013; 34(1):54-62. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13491463. View

19.

Waddell A, Lennox A, Spassova G, Bragge P . Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospitals from policy to practice: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2021; 16(1):74. PMC: 8325317. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y. View

20.

Elwyn G, OConnor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A . Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006; 333(7565):417. PMC: 1553508. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE. View