Acceptability and preliminary feasibility of an internet/CD-ROM-based education and decision program for early-stage prostate cancer patients: randomized pilot study

Michael A Diefenbach, Nihal E Mohamed, Brian P Butz, Natan Bar-Chama, Richard Stock, Jamie Cesaretti, Waleed Hassan, David Samadi, Simon J Hall, Michael A Diefenbach, Nihal E Mohamed, Brian P Butz, Natan Bar-Chama, Richard Stock, Jamie Cesaretti, Waleed Hassan, David Samadi, Simon J Hall

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting men in the United States. Management options for localized disease exist, yet an evidence-based criterion standard for treatment still has to emerge. Although 5-year survival rates approach 98%, all treatment options carry the possibility for significant side effects, such as erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. It is therefore recommended that patients be actively involved in the treatment decision process. We have developed an Internet/CD-ROM-based multimedia Prostate Interactive Educational System (PIES) to enhance patients' treatment decision making. PIES virtually mirrors a health center to provide patients with information about prostate cancer and its treatment through an intuitive interface, using videos, animations, graphics, and texts.

Objectives: (1) To examine the acceptability and feasibility of the PIES intervention and to report preliminary outcomes of the program in a pilot trial among patients with a new prostate cancer diagnosis, and (2) to explore the potential impact of tailoring PIES treatment information to participants' information-seeking styles on study outcomes.

Methods: Participants (n = 72) were patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer who had not made a treatment decision. Patients were randomly assigned to 3 experimental conditions: (1) control condition (providing information through standard National Cancer Institute brochures; 26%), and PIES (2) with tailoring (43%) and (3) without tailoring to a patient's information-seeking style (31%). Questionnaires were administrated before (t1) and immediately after the intervention (t2). Measurements include evaluation and acceptability of the PIES intervention, monitoring/blunting information-seeking style, psychological distress, and decision-related variables (eg, decisional confidence, feeling informed about prostate cancer and treatment, and treatment preference).

Results: The PIES program was well accepted by patients and did not interfere with the clinical routine. About 79% of eligible patients (72/91) completed the pre- and post-PIES intervention assessments. Patients in the PIES groups compared with those in the control condition were significantly more likely to report higher levels of confidence in their treatment choices, higher levels of helpfulness of the information they received in making a treatment decision, and that the information they received was emotionally reassuring. Patients in the PIES groups compared with those in the control condition were significantly less likely to need more information about treatment options, were less anxious about their treatment choices, and thought the information they received was clear (P < .05). Tailoring PIES information to information-seeking style was not related to decision-making variables.

Conclusions: This pilot study confirms that the implementation of PIES within a clinical practice is feasible and acceptable to patients with a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer. PIES improved key decision-making process variables and reduced the emotional impact of a difficult medical decision.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participants’ flow through the study. PIES = Prostate Interactive Educational System; UC = control group.

References

    1. National Cancer Institute. 2011. [2011-06-20]. Prostate Cancer .
    1. Logothetis CJ, Millikan R. Update: NCCN practice guidelines for the treatment of prostate cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 1999;13(11A):118–32.
    1. Bahnson RR, Hanks GE, Huben RP, Kantoff P, Kozlowski JM, Kuettel M, Lange PH, Logothetis C, Pow-Sang JM, Roach M, Sandler H, Scardino PT, Taylor RJ, Urban DA, Walsh PC, Wilson TG, National Comprehensive Cancer Network NCCN Practice Guidelines for Prostate Cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2000 Nov;14(11A):111–9.
    1. Talcott JA, Manola J, Clark JA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Mitchell SP, Chen RC, O'Leary MP, Kantoff PW, D'Amico AV. Time course and predictors of symptoms after primary prostate cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Nov 1;21(21):3979–86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.199.
    1. Litwin MS, Gore JL, Kwan L, Brandeis JM, Lee SP, Withers HR, Reiter RE. Quality of life after surgery, external beam irradiation, or brachytherapy for early-stage prostate cancer. Cancer. 2007 Jun 1;109(11):2239–47. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22676.
    1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005 May 4;293(17):2095–101. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.17.2095.
    1. Diefenbach MA, Mohamed NE. Regret of treatment decision and its association with disease-specific quality of life following prostate cancer treatment. Cancer Invest. 2007 Sep;25(6):449–57. doi: 10.1080/07357900701359460.
    1. O'Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Col NF, Eden KB, Entwistle VA, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub2.
    1. DePalma A. Prostate Cancer Shared Decision: a CD-ROM educational and decision-assisting tool for men with prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol. 2000 Aug;18(3):178–81.
    1. Kim SP, Knight SJ, Tomori C, Colella KM, Schoor RA, Shih L, Kuzel TM, Nadler RB, Bennett CL. Health literacy and shared decision making for prostate cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Cancer Invest. 2001;19(7):684–91.
    1. Diefenbach MA, Butz BP. A multimedia interactive education system for prostate cancer patients: development and preliminary evaluation. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Jan 21;6(1):e3. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.1.e3.
    1. Leventhal H. Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1970;5:119–86. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60091-X.
    1. Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA. Illness cognition: using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1992;16(2):143–63. doi: 10.1007/BF01173486.
    1. Peters E, Diefenbach MA, Hess TM, Västfjäll D. Age differences in dual information-processing modes: implications for cancer decision making. Cancer. 2008 Dec 15;113(12 Suppl):3556–67. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23944.
    1. Miller SM. Monitoring versus blunting styles of coping with cancer influence the information patients want and need about their disease. Implications for cancer screening and management. Cancer. 1995 Jul 15;76(2):167–77.
    1. Skinner CS, Strecher VJ, Hospers H. Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? Am J Public Health. 1994 Jan;84(1):43–9.
    1. Miller DL, Manne SL, Taylor K, Keates J, Dougherty J. Psychological distress and well-being in advanced cancer: the effects of optimism and coping. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 1996;3(2):115–30. doi: 10.1007/BF01996132.
    1. Kazak AE, Simms S, Alderfer MA, Rourke MT, Crump T, McClure K, Jones P, Rodriguez A, Boeving A, Hwang WT, Reilly A. Feasibility and preliminary outcomes from a pilot study of a brief psychological intervention for families of children newly diagnosed with cancer. J Pediatr Psychol. 2005 Dec;30(8):644–55. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsi051.
    1. Steptoe A. An abbreviated version of the Miller Behavioral Style Scale. Br J Clin Psychol. 1989 May;28 ( Pt 2):183–4.
    1. NIH . Us Too International, Inc, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication; 2000. [2011-12-23]. Understanding Treatment Choices for Prostate Cancer (NIH publication no. 00-4659) .
    1. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda: NIH; 2008. Nov 20, [2011-12-23]. What You Need to Know About Prostate Cancer (NIH publication no. 08-1576) .
    1. NIH . National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD: NIH Publication; 1989. Apr, [2011-12-23]. Making Health Communication Programs Work (NIH publication no. 89-1493) .
    1. Robinson TN, Patrick K, Eng TR, Gustafson D. An evidence-based approach to interactive health communication: a challenge to medicine in the information age. Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health. JAMA. 1998 Oct 14;280(14):1264–9.
    1. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979 May;41(3):209–18.
    1. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granch TS, Nefe NE, Spann SJ, Aoki N, Robinson EK, Freidman LC, Beck JR. Entertainment education for informed breast cancer treatment decisions in low-literate women: development and initial evaluation of a patient decision aid. J Cancer Educ. 2006;21(3):133–9. doi: 10.1207/s15430154jce2103_8.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj