When study site contributes to outcomes in a multi-center randomized trial: a secondary analysis of decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer

被引:10
|
作者
Underhill, Meghan L. [1 ]
Hong, Fangxin [2 ,3 ]
Berry, Donna L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Phyllis Cantor Ctr Res Nursing & Patient Care Ser, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Dept Biostat & Computat Biol, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[3] Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Boston, MA 02215 USA
来源
关键词
Localized prostate cancer; Decisional conflict; Decision-making; PREFERENCES; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1186/s12955-014-0159-3
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: Evaluate baseline factors that may explain the influence of study site on decisional conflict (DC) in men from the Personal Patient Profile: Prostate (P3P) randomized trial. Materials and methods: 476 cases from 5 P3P sites were included. Participants completed baseline demographic assessments, 4 subscales of the DC scale at baseline (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, and support), the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (short form) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Site data regarding typical practices were collected. Linear regressions were used to model the relation between baseline DC scores and study site adjusting for the list of variables. Results: Baseline decisional uncertainly (p = 0.001) and informed (p = 0.03) subscales were significantly different across sites. Participant demographic and baseline measures were significantly different (p < 0.05) between sites except for trait anxiety. We identified participant level factors that explained study site differences at baseline for the decisional uncertainty and values clarity subscales: a preferred treatment choice at study entry, whether the study program was accessed at home vs. in clinic, number of doctors consulted pre-study, working status, state anxiety, information from the media or a health care provider, and perceived knowledge level. State anxiety was associated with higher DC across all subscales. Conclusions: Individual characteristics of men seeking consultation for LPC were associated with DC at baseline, not the site alone; anxiety contributed to higher conflict. These findings will inform future development and implementation of the P3P and other decision support interventions.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] When study site contributes to outcomes in a multi-center randomized trial: a secondary analysis of decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer
    Meghan L Underhill
    Fangxin Hong
    Donna L Berry
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12
  • [2] The Personal Patient Profile-Prostate decision support for men with localized prostate cancer: A multi-center randomized trial
    Berry, Donna L.
    Halpenny, Barbara
    Hong, Fangxin
    Wolpin, Seth
    Lober, William B.
    Russell, Kenneth J.
    Ellis, William J.
    Govindarajulu, Usha
    Bosco, Jaclyn
    Davison, B. Joyce
    Bennett, Gerald
    Terris, Martha K.
    Barsevick, Andrea
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Yang, Claire C.
    Swanson, Greg
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2013, 31 (07) : 1012 - 1021
  • [3] Item response theory analysis and properties of decisional conflict scales: findings from two multi-site trials of men with localized prostate cancer
    Pozzar, Rachel A.
    Berry, Donna L.
    Hong, Fangxin
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2019, 19 (1)
  • [4] Item response theory analysis and properties of decisional conflict scales: findings from two multi-site trials of men with localized prostate cancer
    Rachel A. Pozzar
    Donna L. Berry
    Fangxin Hong
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19
  • [5] Focal vs extended ablation in localized prostate cancer with irreversible electroporation; a multi-center randomized controlled trial
    Matthijs J. V. Scheltema
    Willemien van den Bos
    Daniel M. de Bruin
    Hessel Wijkstra
    M. Pilar Laguna
    Theo M. de Reijke
    Jean JMCH de la Rosette
    BMC Cancer, 16
  • [6] Focal vs extended ablation in localized prostate cancer with irreversible electroporation; a multi-center randomized controlled trial
    Scheltema, Matthijs J. V.
    van den Bos, Willemien
    de Bruin, Daniel M.
    Wijkstra, Hessel
    Laguna, M. Pilar
    de Reijke, Theo M.
    de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.
    BMC CANCER, 2016, 16
  • [7] DECISION REGRET, ADVERSE OUTCOMES AND TREATMENT CHOICE IN MEN WITH LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER: RESULTS FROM A MULTI-SITE RANDOMIZED TRIAL
    Berry, Donna L.
    Hong, Fangxin
    Blonquist, Traci
    Halpenny, Barbara
    Xiong, Niya
    Filson, Christopher P.
    Master, Viraj A.
    Sanda, Martin G.
    Chang, Peter
    Chien, Gary
    Jones, Randy
    Krupski, Tracey
    Wolpin, Seth
    Wilson, Leslie
    Hayes, Julia
    Quoc-Dien Trinh
    Sokoloff, Mitch
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E345 - E346
  • [8] Decision regret, adverse outcomes, and treatment choice in men with localized prostate cancer: Results from a multi-site randomized trial
    Berry, Donna L.
    Hong, Fangxin
    Blonquist, Traci M.
    Halpenny, Barbara
    Xiong, Niya
    Filson, Christopher P.
    Master, Viraj A.
    Sanda, Martin G.
    Chang, Peter
    Chien, Gary W.
    Jones, Randy A.
    Krupski, Tracey L.
    Wolpin, Seth
    Wilson, Leslie
    Hayes, Julia H.
    Trinh, Quoc-Dien
    Sokoloff, Mitchell
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2021, 39 (08) : 493.e9 - 493.e15
  • [9] Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer
    Joseph D. Shirk
    Catherine M. Crespi
    Josemanuel D. Saucedo
    Sylvia Lambrechts
    Ely Dahan
    Robert Kaplan
    Christopher Saigal
    The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2017, 10 : 785 - 798
  • [10] Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer
    Shirk, Joseph D.
    Crespi, Catherine M.
    Saucedo, Josemanuel D.
    Lambrechts, Sylvia
    Dahan, Ely
    Kaplan, Robert
    Saigal, Christopher
    PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2017, 10 (06): : 785 - 798