Sharing Decision-making Program for HCC Patients Treatment Decisions

The Effectiveness of Sharing Decision-making Program Interventions in the Early Stage of HCC to Reduce Treatment Decisions Conflicts and Improving Decision-making Satisfaction

Aim: Explore the effectiveness of sharing decision-making program interventions in the early stage of HCC to reduce treatment decisions conflicts and improving decision-making satisfaction.

Design: An experimental design will be used in the study. The 102 primary liver cancer patients, who were diagnosed with Barcelona stage(BCLC stage) 0-A, will be recruited and randomized to the control or intervention group. The intervention measures in this study "sharing decision-making plan" mainly includes sharing the decision-making talks and the decision-making assistance tools used in the process.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Hepatocellular Cancer
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: sharing decision-making program

Detailed Description

The effectiveness of sharing decision-making program interventions in the early stage of HCC to reduce treatment decisions conflicts and improving decision-making satisfactionHepatocarcinoma (HCC) is a high incidence and high mortality disease. Hepatocarcinoma is also a very common disease in Taiwan. Treatment options are limited to those patients with advanced Hepatocarcinoma. However, there are many options for patients with compensated cirrhosis, and small liver tumors are potentially resectable. When patients understood the detailed assessment of the disease both doctors and patients can set the best treatment goals. Sharing decision-making is a patient-centered collaborative processes that enable individuals and their healthcare providers to make decisions together, but patient engagement appears to be less optimistic and there is a lack of evidence that the link between sharing decision-making measures and patient behavior and health outcomes. When decisions are made under social stress or time constraints, people may make less than optimal decisions when they lack sufficient information or skills. Since then the treatment does not match the expected results, often result in decision regrets or arguments with the medical team, and even evolved into medical lawsuits. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of sharing decision-making program interventions in the early stage of HCC to reduce treatment decisions conflicts and improving decision-making satisfaction. In this study, investigators took the experimental design to assess the cases of early hepatocellular carcinoma in hepato- gastroenterology, surgery and oncology clinical in a teaching hospital in the eastern part of Taiwan.

The intervention measures in this study "sharing decision-making plan" mainly includes sharing the decision-making talks and the decision-making assistance tools used in the process. According to Elwyn et.al. (2012), the decision-sharing model was proposed to intervene in the treatment decision-making of early liver cancer patients, including Choice talk, Option talk, Decision talk, and decision-making. Decision support for the process, where the investigator meets with the patient and its important others in the interdisciplinary discussion room or ward meeting room.

Second, decision assistance tools. Decision assistance tools provide information about options and outcomes, and clarify personal values to help people participate in decision making. The aim is to supplement, rather than replace, medical staff counseling (Collins et al., 2009), and the quality of decision aids is very important. Satisfaction with the use of tools is associated with increased patient satisfaction and reduced decision-making. Patients can benefit from computerized decision-making tools without the need to increase physician involvement.

The research tools include basic population data, clinical stage of disease, self-efficacy scale of hepatocellular carcinoma, Decision Decision Confidence Scale (DCS), decision self-efficacy scale , Decision Satisfaction Scale and Chinese Simplified-form Mandarin Health Literacy Scale.

The obtained data were collected and analyzed by SPSS20.0 for Window software. The main statistical methods include descriptive statistics, T-test, analysis of variance, Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficient and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) ).

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 70
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Taiwan
  • Yilan, Taiwan, 265
    • Lo-Hsu medical foundation Lotung Poh-Ai hospital

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 20 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Primary liver cancer patients (ICD 10 is C22.0) and Barcelona stage (BCLC stage) 0-A.
2. At least 20 years of age.
3. No mental illness.
4. Patients who can communicate in Mandarin or Taiwanese.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Don't know himself condition.
2. Unconscious patients.
3. Patients with liver cancer resection or partial liver resection were performed within 3 months.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: sharing decision-making program interventions; Description of conventional traditional treatment options and add sharing decision-making program The intervention measures in this study "sharing decision-making plan" mainly includes sharing the decision-making talks and the decision-making assistance tools used in the process.	Behavioral: sharing decision-making program; Sharing decision-making talks and decision-making assistance tools used in the process
No Intervention: Description of traditional treatment options; Description of conventional traditional treatment options

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Decisional Conflict Scale	5 questions for a total of 16 questions, respectively, to assess the uncertainty of the subscale (10-12 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points , informed subscales (1-3 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, values subscales (4-6 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, support subscales ( 7-9 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, effective decision-making scale (13-16 questions) the subscale total score range 0-300 points, Each question is scored on a Likert scale of 0-4 points (very strongly agreed to very disagree), then multiplied by 25 so that each question may score 0-100 points. A score of 0 is a good decision, and a score of 100 is the worst decision. the total score was 0 to 1600 points.	1 week

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Satisfaction With Decision Instrument	The content consists of 6 items, with a score of 1-5 points (very strongly disagreed and very agreeable) for each question. The score may be 6-30 points. The higher the score, the higher the satisfaction with the decision. A score of 6 indicates that the extreme dissatisfaction of 30 points indicates extreme satisfaction.	1 week
Decision Self-efficacy Scale	The scale included 11 questions, and participants were asked to think about how confident they were in making informed choices in 11 situations. The scoring for each situation is scored on a Likert scale with 0-4 points (very agrees to very disagree) for each question, then multiplied by 25 so that each question may score 0-100 points. The higher the score, the more confident participant are. Each question 0 points is not confident, 100 points is very confident. total score range is 0- 1100 points	1 week
Liver Cancer Treatment Options Related Knowledge Scale	A total of 20 questions total score of 100 points, the higher the knowledge, the better.Total scale range was 5-100 points.	1 week

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Control Preference Scale	The scale is patients make treatment decisions in life-threatening conditions. For the first time, ask patients about their preferred clinical decision-making role. Then, ask a second time for the style they experienced. The instrument doesn't have any score on a scale. Each question was counted independently, the maximum is the number of participants in each group. the minimum is zero.	1 week
Decision Regret Scale	The DRS was used to evaluate the feeling of regret after making a decision. There are 5 questions on the scale. The scoring of each situation is based on a Likert scale of 1-5 points (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) for each question. The score is subtracted by 1 and then multiplied by 25, so that each question may be scored 0-100 Minute. The final score is added and averaged. The score range is 0-100 points. The higher the score, the more regretful it is, the 0 point means no regret and 100 points means very regret.	around 3 month after discharge

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences
• Collaborators: Lotung Poh-Ai Hospital

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, Sloan JA, Carriere KC, O'Neil J, Bilodeau B, Watson P, Mueller B. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 1997 May 14;277(18):1485-92.
• Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43.
• Bruix J, Reig M, Sherman M. Evidence-Based Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr;150(4):835-53. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.041. Epub 2016 Jan 12.
• Katie Lee SY, Knobf MT. Primary Breast Cancer Decision-making Among Chinese American Women: Satisfaction, Regret. Nurs Res. 2015 Sep-Oct;64(5):391-401. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000116.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): May 1, 2019
• Primary Completion (Actual): March 6, 2020
• Study Completion (Actual): March 6, 2020

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: April 16, 2019
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 23, 2019
• First Posted (Actual): April 24, 2019

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): October 29, 2021
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 27, 2021
• Last Verified: October 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: Health Literacy; Hepatocarcinoma; sharing decision-making; decisional conflicts
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Digestive System Diseases; Neoplasms by Histologic Type; Neoplasms; Neoplasms by Site; Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Digestive System Neoplasms; Liver Diseases; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Liver Neoplasms
• Other Study ID Numbers: CMUH108-REC3-002

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: No

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No