Neuroma, Acoustic
Conditions
Keywords
decision aids, shared decision making
Brief summary
Patients with acoustic neuroma had several treatment options. One of standard treatment is to receive the Gamma knife stereotactic radiosurgery, other options included suboccipital craniotomy and conservative treatment. Thus, shared decision making (SDM) is necessary to aid patients to choose an appropriate treatment that suits their needs. The investigators have developed a decision aids (DAs) and plan to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate its impact on acoustic neuroma patients. The measurements include a battery of interview-based questionnaires and evaluations of decision regret and post-treatment depression. The investigators expect the DAs would benefit the intervention group in the aspects of knowledge, communication and anxiety status during and after their treatment sessions.
Interventions
OTHERDecision aids
Shared decision making with decision aids
Sponsors
Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. Patients with acoustic neuroma. 2. Tumor diameter ≤ 3.5cm. 3. The tumor type is Schwannoma.
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients with acoustic neuroma less than 20 years old 2. Pregnant woman 3. Patients can not cooperate with Gamma Knife treatment 4. Patients with acoustic neuroma who do not have their own abilities 5. Tumor diameter \> 3.5cm.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Decisional conflict | 4 weeks after discussion of treatment choice | Total score of decisional conflict scale |
| Knowledge | 4 weeks after discussion of treatment choice | Total score on knowledge scale |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Decision regret | 4 weeks after treatment | Total score of decision regret, The dependent variable for this study was decision regret, assessed using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). The DRS consists of five statements: (1) It was the right decision; (2) I regret the choice that was made; (3) I would go for the same choice if I had to do it over again; (4) the choice did me a lot of harm, and (5) the decision was a wise one. Agreement with each statement is measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Score of each item is converted to a 0-100 scale by subtracting 1 from each item and multiplying by 25. Scores from items 2 and 4 are reversed. To obtain a global score, all items are summed and the total is divided by 5. Scores range from 0 (no regret) to 100 (high regret), increasing by increments of 5. Ref. Brehaut JC, O'Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, Feldman-Stewart D Med Decis Making. 2003 Jul-Aug; 23(4):281-92. |
| Post-treatment depression | 4 weeks after treatment | Total score of Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) |
Contacts
Primary ContactI-Chun Lai
Outcome results
None listed