Online decision aid for patients with prostate cancer evaluated by 11 290 patients and 91 urologists in Germany

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftForschungsartikelBeigetragenBegutachtung

Beitragende

  • Johannes Huber - , Philipps-Universität Marburg (Autor:in)
  • Philipp Karschuck - , Philipps-Universität Marburg (Autor:in)
  • Johanna Valdix - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie (Autor:in)
  • Christian Thomas - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie (Autor:in)
  • Rainer Koch - , Philipps-Universität Marburg (Autor:in)
  • Andreas Ihrig - , Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg (Autor:in)
  • Tobias Hölscher - , Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie (Autor:in)
  • Tanja Krones - , Universitätsspital Zürich (Autor:in)
  • Elke Kessler - , ASD Concepts GmbH & Co. KG (Autor:in)
  • Sabine Kliesch - , Universitätsklinikum Münster (Autor:in)
  • Clemens Linné - , Krankenhaus St. Joseph-Stift Dresden (Autor:in)
  • Paul Enders - , Bundesverband Prostatakrebs Selbsthilfe e. V. (Autor:in)
  • Maurice-Stephan Michel - , Universitätsmedizin Mannheim (Autor:in)
  • Christian Wülfing - , Asklepios Klinik Altona (Autor:in)
  • Christer Groeben - , Philipps-Universität Marburg (Autor:in)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the nationwide online decision aid 'Entscheidungshilfe Prostatakrebs' (established in 2016, >11.000 users and 60 new users/week) for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), from the perspective of patients and urologists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: To provide personalised information, the tool collects most of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, personal preferences, psychological features, and a validated rating of the tool. To evaluate urologists' opinions, we developed a structured two-page questionnaire. All data were collected anonymously.

RESULTS: From June 2016 to December 2020, 11 290 patients used the PCa decision aid. Their median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 67 (61-72) years. The median (IQR) time from initial diagnosis to using the tool was 4 (3-7) weeks. In all, 87.7% of users reported high satisfaction. In a multivariable model, predictors for considering observation were higher knowledge, using the decision aid alone, lower oncological risk, normal erectile function, and respective personal preferences. Of 194 urologists, 91 (47%) had implemented the decision aid in their clinical practice. The urologists' mean (SD) satisfaction score (1 'very good'; 6 'unsatisfactory') with it was 1.45 (0.55), and 92% recommended it. Half of the urologists reported time savings.

CONCLUSION: Patients and urologists report a very high level of acceptance and satisfaction with this online tool. It offers advantages in shared decision-making and time efficiency. The usage of the decision aid might improve the adoption of active surveillance and watchful waiting when indicated.

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)239-248
Seitenumfang10
FachzeitschriftBJU international
Jahrgang134
Ausgabenummer2
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - Aug. 2024
Peer-Review-StatusJa

Externe IDs

Scopus 85188628959

Schlagworte

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Schlagwörter

  • Aged, Decision Support Techniques, Germany, Humans, Internet, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Satisfaction, Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Urologists/statistics & numerical data