Comparison of explicit values clarification method (VCM), implicit VCM and no VCM decision aids for men considering prostate cancer screening: protocol of a randomized trial

S Baptista, B Heleno, A Teixeira, K L Taylor, C Martins, S Baptista, B Heleno, A Teixeira, K L Taylor, C Martins

Abstract

Background: Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is considered a preference sensitive decision; meaning it does not only depend on what is best from a medical point of view, but also from a patient value standpoint. Decision aids are evidence-based tools which are shown to help people feel clearer about their values; therefore it has been advocated that decision aids should contain a specific values clarification method (VCM). VCMs may be either implicit or explicit, but the evidence concerning the best method is scarce. We aim to compare the perceived clarity of personal values in men considering PSA screening using decision aids with no VCM versus an implicit VCM versus an explicit VCM.

Methods: Male factory employees from an industrial facility in the Northern region of Portugal aged 50 to 69 years old will be randomly assigned to one of three decision aid groups used to support prostate cancer screening decisions: (i) decision aid with information only (control), (ii) decision aid with information plus an implicit VCM, (iii) decision aid with information plus an explicit VCM. Men will be allowed release time from work to attend a session at their workplace. After a brief oral presentation, those willing to participate in the study will fill the baseline questionnaire, plus a 5 point-Likert scale question about intentions to undergo screening, and will then receive the intervention materials to complete. We estimated a total sample size of 276 participants; with 92 in each group. The primary outcome will be the perceived clarity of personal values assessed by the Portuguese validated translation of the three subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes will be intention to be screened (before and after the intervention), the total score from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the self-report of having or not undergone screening at 6 months.

Discussion: This study will add to the body of evidence on the role of decision aids to support health preference-sensitive choices and provide further insight on the impact of different methods for eliciting people's values embedded within a decision aid.

Trial registration: NCT03988673 - clinicalTrials.gov (2019/06/17).

Keywords: Decision aid; Decisional conflict; Prostate cancer; Screening; Shared decision-making; Values clarification.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Randomisation of trial participants
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Sequence of main trial steps

References

    1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262.
    1. Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Mansson M, Tammela TLJ, Zappa M, Nellen V, et al. ERSPC investigators. A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;(19):30150–2. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009.
    1. Heijnsdijk EAM, Wever EM, Auvinen A, Hugosson J, Ciatto S, Nellen V, et al. Quality-of-life effects of prostate-specific antigen screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:595–605. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1201637.
    1. Garvelink MM, ter Kuile MM, Stiggelbout AM, de Vries M. Values clarification in a decision aid about fertility preservation: does it add to information provision? BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:68. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-14-68.
    1. Volk R, Lewellyn-Thomas H. The 2012 IPDAS Background Document: An Introduction. In: Volk R, Lewellyn-Thomas H, editors. Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document. 2012.
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(Issue 4). 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5 PMID: . Art. No.: CD001431.
    1. Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Volk RJ, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. The international patient decision aids standards (IPDAS) collaboration: developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333:417–410. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Sepucha KR, Abhyankar P, Hoffman AS, Bekker HL, LeBlanc A, Levin CA, et al. Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient decision aid evaluation studies: the development of SUNDAE checklist. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:380–388. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006986.
    1. Abhyankar P, Bekker HL, Summers BA, Velikova G. Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation. Health Expect. 2011;14(1):20–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00615.x.
    1. Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Crump RT. Decision Support for Patients: Values Clarification and Preference Elicitation. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1_suppl):50S–79S. doi: 10.1177/1077558712461182.
    1. Brenner A, Howard K, Lewis C, Sheridan S, Crutchfield T, Hawley S, et al. Comparing 3 values clarification methods for colorectal cancer screening decision-making: a randomized trial in the US and Australia. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;29(3):507–513. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2701-0.
    1. Sheridan SL, Griffith JM, Behrend L, Gizlice Z. Jianwen Cai, Pignone MP. Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(4):E28–E39. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10369008.
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(Issue 1) Art. No: CD001431. 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
    1. Witteman HO, Gavaruzzi T, Scherer LD, Pieterse AH, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Chipenda DS, et al. Effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods: a systematic review. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(6):760–776. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16634085.
    1. Kassan EC, Williams RM, Kelly SP, Barry SA, Penek S, Fishman MB, et al. Men's use of an internet-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2012;17(6):677–697. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.579688.
    1. Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, Luta G, Penek S, Barry S, et al. Decision making in prostate Cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Int Med. 2013;173(18):1704–1712. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9253.
    1. Tomko C, Davis KM, Luta G, et al. A comparison of web-based versus print-based decision aids for prostate Cancer screening: participants’ evaluation and utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(1):33–42. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2994-7.
    1. Tomko C, Davis K, Ludin S, Krist AH, Woolf SH, Taylor KL. Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(2):189–197. doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0301-0.
    1. Starosta AJ, Luta G, Tomko CA, Schwartz MD, Taylor KL. Baseline attitudes about prostate cancer screening moderate the impact of decision aids on screening rates. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(5):762–768. doi: 10.1007/s12160-015-9692-5.
    1. Baptista S, Heleno B, Pinto M, Guimarães B, China D, Ramos JP, Teixeira A, Taylor KL, Martins C. Prostate cancer screening decision aid translation and cultural adaptation: a qualitative study in Portugal. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e034384. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034384.
    1. Gattellari M, Ward JE. Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2003;10:27–39. doi: 10.1258/096914103321610789.
    1. Martinho MJ, Martins MM, Angelo M. Escala de conflito em tomadas de decisão em saúde: instrumento adaptado e validado para língua portuguesa. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2013;47(3):576–583. doi: 10.1590/S0080-623420130000300008.
    1. O’Connor AM. User manual – decision Conflict Scale. © 1993 [updated 2010]. Available from (accessed December 2018).

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera