Skip to content

Testing the effectiveness of a multi-criteria values clarification methods for patients with localized prostate cancer

A MCDA-based method to measure the quality of localized prostate cancer treatment decisions

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
NL-OMON
Registry ID
NL-OMON22110
Enrollment
125
Registered
2018-08-09
Start date
2017-09-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2024-02-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Shared decision making, Values clarification methods, decision aid, analytic hierarchy process, prostate cancer

Interventions

The values clarification method (VCM) based on analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is appropriate to generate more insight into the decision making process of patients. AHP is most often used in health c

Sponsors

Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: - Men that are newly diagnosed with localized early staged prostate cancer. ‘Early stage’ prostate cancer is defined by a T1c-T2c tumour with a maximum PSA-score of 20 and a maximum Gleason-score of 7. - Patients are eligible for active surveillance and active treatment. - Patients who want to use the web-based decision aid. - Patients have to be able to make use of a computer with internet-access in order make use of the web-based decision aid and the AHP model. - Patients have to be able to complete a Dutch questionnaire.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: - Patients with advanced cancer; the decision aid is not suitable for decisions involved in a more advanced stage of the cancer (any score higher than mentioned as inclusion criteria). - If the urologist judges the patient is not in the right condition to participate, the patient will not be approached.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
- Disease-specific knowledge - Decisional Conflict (special interest: informed subscale) = subjective knowledge - Value congruence by measuring indicated preferences, changes in preferences - Decision quality

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Patients’ evaluation of the AHP- model (acceptability) - Consistency of patient’s answers - Reduction of proportion of patients who did not indicate a specific preferred treatment option after use of the DA by adding the AHP model to the existing DA. - Satisfaction with decision (making) - Satisfaction with treatment - Preparation for decision making - Decisional regret - Demographics - Health skills (numeracy and literacy)

Contacts

Public ContactIsabel de Angst

Erasmus MC/Elisabeth- TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Urologie

i.deangst@etz.nl

Outcome results

None listed

Source: NL-OMON (via WHO ICTRP)