IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p8904-d868945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study

Author

Listed:
  • Blanca Lumbreras

    (Department of Public Health, History of Science and Gynecology, Miguel Hernandez University, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain
    CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, CIBERESP, 28029 Madrid, Spain)

  • Lucy Anne Parker

    (Department of Public Health, History of Science and Gynecology, Miguel Hernandez University, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain
    CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, CIBERESP, 28029 Madrid, Spain)

  • Pablo Alonso-Coello

    (CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, CIBERESP, 28029 Madrid, Spain
    Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, 08001 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Javier Mira-Bernabeu

    (Department of Preventive Medicine, Hospital Universitario de San Juan, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain)

  • Luis Gómez-Pérez

    (Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario de San Juan, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain)

  • Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu

    (Department of Urology, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, 03010 Alicante, Spain)

  • Salvador Pertusa-Martínez

    (Cabo Huertas Healthcare Centre, 03540 Alicante, Spain)

  • Ana Cebrián-Cuenca

    (Cartagena Casco Healthcare Centre, 30201 Cartagena, Spain)

  • Irene Moral-Peláez

    (Unidad de Investigación, Equipo de Atención Primaria Sardenya, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau, 08001 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Maite López-Garrigós

    (CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, CIBERESP, 28029 Madrid, Spain
    Clinical Laboratory, Hospital Universitario de San Juan, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain)

  • Carlos Canelo-Aybar

    (CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, CIBERESP, 28029 Madrid, Spain
    Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, 08001 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Elena Ronda

    (CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, CIBERESP, 28029 Madrid, Spain
    Public Health Research Group, Alicante University, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain)

  • Mercedes Guilabert

    (Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernandez University, 03202 Elche, Spain)

  • Antonio Prieto-González

    (Cancer Prostate Association (ANCAP), 30012 Murcia, Spain)

  • Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado

    (Department of Public Health, History of Science and Gynecology, Miguel Hernandez University, 03550 San Juan de Alicante, Spain
    CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, CIBERESP, 28029 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

Background: Opportunistic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false positive results, biopsy complications and overdiagnosis. Although different organisations have emphasised the importance of shared decision making (SDM) to assist men in deciding whether to undergo prostate cancer screening, recent evaluations show that the available decision aids fail to facilitate SDM, mainly because they do not consider the patients’ perspective in their design. We aim to systematically develop and test a patient decision aid to promote SDM in prostate cancer screening, following the Knowledge to Action framework. Methods: (1) Feasibility study: a quantitative survey evaluating the population and clinician (urologists and general practitioners) knowledge of the benefits and risks derived from PSA determination and the awareness of the available recommendations. Focus groups to explore the challenges patients and clinicians face when discussing prostate cancer screening, the relevance of a decision aid and how best to integrate it into practice. (2) Patient decision aid development: Based on this data, an evidence-based multicomponent SDM patient decision aid will be developed. (3) User-testing: an assessment of the prototype of the initial patient decision aid through a user-testing design based on mix-methods (questionnaire and semi-structured review). The decision aid will be refined through several iterative cycles of feedback and redesign. (4) Validation: an evaluation of the patient decision aid through a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Discussion: The designed patient decision aid will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and should help patients to consider their personal preferences and to take a more active role in decision making. Conclusions: The well-designed patient decision aid (PDA) will provide balanced information on screening benefits and risks and help patients consider their personal preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Blanca Lumbreras & Lucy Anne Parker & Pablo Alonso-Coello & Javier Mira-Bernabeu & Luis Gómez-Pérez & Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu & Salvador Pertusa-Martínez & Ana Cebrián-Cuenca & Irene Moral-Peláez &, 2022. "PROSHADE Protocol: Designing and Evaluating a Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer: A Mix-Method Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-9, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:8904-:d:868945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/8904/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/8904/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Jill Kroll & Neal Schmitt & David R. Rovner & M. Lynn Breer & Marilyn L. Rothert & Georgia Padonu & Geraldine Talarczyk, 1996. "Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 58-64, February.
    2. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yueh-Ling Liao & Tsae-Jyy Wang & Chien-Wei Su & Shu-Yuan Liang & Chieh-Yu Liu & Jun-Yu Fan, 2023. "Efficacy of a Decision Support Intervention on Decisional Conflict Related to Hepatocellular Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(1), pages 233-243, January.
    2. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    3. Omar Shamieh & Ghadeer Alarjeh & Mohammad Al Qadire & Waleed Alrjoub & Mahmoud Abu-Nasser & Fadi Abu Farsakh & Abdelrahman AlHawamdeh & Mohammad Al-Omari & Zaid Amin & Omar Ayaad & Amal Al-Tabba & Dav, 2023. "Decision-Making Preferences among Advanced Cancer Patients in a Palliative Setting in Jordan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(8), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Richard L. Street JR & Becky Voigt, 1997. "Patient Participation in Deciding Breast Cancer Treatment and Subsequent Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(3), pages 298-306, July.
    5. Yi-Chih Lee & Wei-Li Wu, 2019. "Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Davit Marikyan & Savvas Papagiannidis, 2024. "Exercising the “Right to Repair”: A Customer’s Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 193(1), pages 35-61, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:8904-:d:868945. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.