A personalized, web-based breast cancer decision making application: a pre-post survey

Kirk D Wyatt, Sarah M Jenkins, Matthew F Plevak, Marcia R Venegas Pont, Sandhya Pruthi, Kirk D Wyatt, Sarah M Jenkins, Matthew F Plevak, Marcia R Venegas Pont, Sandhya Pruthi

Abstract

Background: Every case of breast cancer is unique, and treatment must be personalized to incorporate a woman's values and preferences. We developed an individually-tailored mobile patient education application for women with breast cancer.

Methods: Pre-post surveys were completed by 255 women who used the tool.

Results: Patients thought the application included helpful information (N = 184, 72%) and was easy to navigate (N = 156, 61%). Most patients thought the amount of information in the tool was "about right" (N = 193, 87%). Decision making confidence increased by an average of 0.8 points (10-point scale) following a consultation and use of the tool (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Tailored mobile applications may optimize care by facilitating shared decision making and knowledge transfer, and they may also enhance the experience of patients as they navigate through their breast cancer journey.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Clinical decision-making; Mobile applications; Shared decision making.

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors has a personal financial conflict of interest relating to this work; however, all co-authors are employed by Mayo Clinic, and Mayo Clinic retains intellectual property rights relating to the educational tool described herein.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Application screenshots
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Survey workflow
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distance between patients’ homes and our clinic
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Scatter plot and linear regression for change in confidence and post-intervention confidence against pre-intervention confidence

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442.
    1. Maughan KL, Lutterbie MA, Ham PS. Treatment of breast cancer. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81(11):1339–1346.
    1. Campbell-Enns HJ, Woodgate RL, Chochinov HM. Barriers to information provision regarding breast cancer and its treatment. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(10):3209–3216. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3730-8.
    1. Nicholas Z, Butow P, Tesson S, Boyle F. A systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer. Breast. 2016;26:31–45. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.12.007.
    1. Nguyen SK, Ingledew PA. Tangled in the breast cancer web: an evaluation of the usage of web-based information resources by breast cancer patients. J Cancer Educ. 2013;28(4):662–668. doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0509-6.
    1. Nghiem AZ, Mahmoud Y, Som R. Evaluating the quality of internet information for breast cancer. Breast. 2016;25:34–37. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.10.001.
    1. Quinn EM, Corrigan MA, McHugh SM, et al. Breast cancer information on the internet: analysis of accessibility and accuracy. Breast. 2012;21(4):514–517. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2012.01.020.
    1. Wofford JL, Smith ED, Miller DP. The multimedia computer for office-based patient education: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;59(2):148–157. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2004.10.011.
    1. Pruthi S, Rausch S, Montori V, Hathaway JC, Vickers Douglas KS. Patient and clinician opinion of computer-based breast cancer education during a specialist consultation. Breast J. 2010;16(5):564–566. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00962.x.
    1. Morgan ER, Laing K, McCarthy J, McCrate F, Seal MD. Using tablet-based technology in patient education about systemic therapy options for early-stage breast cancer: a pilot study. Curr Oncol. 2015;22(5):e364–e369. doi: 10.3747/co.22.2476.
    1. Agoritsas T, Heen AF, Brandt L, et al. Decision aids that really promote shared decision making: the pace quickens. BMJ. 2015;350:g7624. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7624.
    1. Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni RB. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(5):899–908. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv189.
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500105.
    1. Bowen D. Predictors of women’s internet access and internet health seeking. Health Care Women Int. 2003;24(10):940–951. doi: 10.1080/07399330390244130.
    1. van Deursen AJ, van Dijk JA. Internet skills performance tests: are people ready for eHealth? J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(2):e35. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1581.
    1. Pereira JL, Koski S, Hanson J, Bruera ED, Mackey JR. Internet usage among women with breast cancer: an exploratory study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2000;1(2):148–153. doi: 10.3816/CBC.2000.n.013.
    1. Bruce JG, Tucholka JL, Steffens NM, Neuman HB. Quality of online information to support patient decision-making in breast cancer surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(6):575–580. doi: 10.1002/jso.24046.
    1. Warren E, Footman K, Tinelli M, McKee M, Knai C. Do cancer-specific websites meet patient's information needs? Patient Educ Couns. 2014;95(1):126–136. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.12.013.
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Mandelblatt J, Kreling B, Figeuriedo M, Feng S. What is the impact of shared decision making on treatment and outcomes for older women with breast cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(30):4908–4913. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.1159.
    1. Cyran EM, Crane LA, Palmer L. Physician sex and other factors associated with type of breast cancer surgery in older women. Arch Surg. 2001;136(2):185–191. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.136.2.185.
    1. Montori VM, Breslin M, Maleska M, Weymiller AJ. Creating a conversation: insights from the development of a decision aid. PLoS Med. 2007;4(8):e233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040233.
    1. Serpico V, Liepert AE, Boucher K, et al. The effect of Previsit education in breast Cancer patients: a study of a shared-decision-making tool. Am Surg. 2016;82(3):259–265.
    1. Jacobsen SJ, Xia Z, Campion ME, et al. Potential effect of authorization bias on medical record research. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74(4):330–338. doi: 10.4065/74.4.330.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe