RESUMO
PURPOSE: To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups (P < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; P < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months (P < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.
Assuntos
Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Preferência do Paciente , Assistência Centrada no Paciente/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/psicologia , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Participação do Paciente , Satisfação do Paciente , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify adolescent preferences for emergency department (ED)-based education about emergency contraception. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional computerized survey, using adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA). Patients were eligible if they were females ages 14 through 19 years old and were seeking care in one of two urban EDs. Patients were excluded if they were too ill to participate in the survey or if they were non-English speaking. Participants completed a computerized survey that used ACA, a technique that can be used to assess patients' relative preferences for services. ACA uses the individual's answers to update and refine questions through trade-off comparisons, so that each respondent answers a customized set of questions. The survey assessed preferences for the following attributes of emergency contraception education: who should deliver the education, if anyone (e.g., nurse, doctor); how the education should be delivered (e.g., by a person or via video); how often the education should be offered if patients were to frequent the ED (e.g., every time or only when asking for it); length (e.g., 5 minutes, 10 minutes); and chief complaint that would trigger the education (e.g., headache or stomach pain). RESULTS: A total of 223 patients were enrolled (37.2% at Hospital 1 and 62.8% at Hospital 2). The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 16.1 (±1.3) years. Just over half (55%) reported a history of sexual activity; 8% reported a history of pregnancy. Overall, the participants preferred education that was delivered by a person, specifically a doctor or nurse. They preferred a slightly longer education session and preferred education directed at patients seeking care in the ED for complaints potentially related to sexual activity. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents have specific preferences for how education about emergency contraception would best serve their needs. This information can inform clinicians as they work to improve adolescents' knowledge about pregnancy prevention and emergency contraception in particular.