The Heidelberg Decision Aid for Patients With Lung Cancer (HELP)—Findings of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 6.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Matthias Villalobos, Laura Unsöld, Nicole Deis, Rouven Behnisch, Anja Siegle, Michael Thomas
{"title":"The Heidelberg Decision Aid for Patients With Lung Cancer (HELP)—Findings of a Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Matthias Villalobos, Laura Unsöld, Nicole Deis, Rouven Behnisch, Anja Siegle, Michael Thomas","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advanced lung cancer typifies the challenges of shared decision-making in oncology. With a limited prognosis for survival, the increasingly numerous and complex treatment options must continually be weighed against issues of fragility, quality of life, and the end of life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized, controlled trial, carried out on 138 patients, concerned the use of a decision aid combined with decision coaching, versus standard care. The primary endpoint was clarity of the patient's personal attitude, as assessed on the Decisional Conflict Scale. The secondary endpoints were self-efficacy, decisional conflict, perceived preparedness and participation in decision-making, and anxiety/depression. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons. The trial was entered into the German registry of clinical trials (DRKS00028023).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant difference with regard to the primary endpoint (clarity of the patient's personal attitude concerning the decision) was found in a comparison between the intervention group and the control group (IG: median/IQR: 41.67/47.92; CG: median/IQR: 33.33/43.75; p = 0.35). The descriptive statistics revealed a high level of decisional conflict in the overall group of study participants: 57.6% had a very high level of decisional conflict, composed in particular of the dimensions of feeling inadequately informed (64.4%) and of uncertainty (58.9%). Most participants judged the intervention to be helpful in preparing them to make a decision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Even though the intervention was perceived as helpful preparation for decision-making, it did not bring about any improvement in the high level of decisional conflict. With the continual development of new treatments and the associated increase in prognostic uncertainty, there is an important role for individualized patient information and the training of physicians in how to deal with uncertainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":11258,"journal":{"name":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","volume":" Forthcoming","pages":"861-867"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deutsches Arzteblatt international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0228","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advanced lung cancer typifies the challenges of shared decision-making in oncology. With a limited prognosis for survival, the increasingly numerous and complex treatment options must continually be weighed against issues of fragility, quality of life, and the end of life.

Methods: This randomized, controlled trial, carried out on 138 patients, concerned the use of a decision aid combined with decision coaching, versus standard care. The primary endpoint was clarity of the patient's personal attitude, as assessed on the Decisional Conflict Scale. The secondary endpoints were self-efficacy, decisional conflict, perceived preparedness and participation in decision-making, and anxiety/depression. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons. The trial was entered into the German registry of clinical trials (DRKS00028023).

Results: No statistically significant difference with regard to the primary endpoint (clarity of the patient's personal attitude concerning the decision) was found in a comparison between the intervention group and the control group (IG: median/IQR: 41.67/47.92; CG: median/IQR: 33.33/43.75; p = 0.35). The descriptive statistics revealed a high level of decisional conflict in the overall group of study participants: 57.6% had a very high level of decisional conflict, composed in particular of the dimensions of feeling inadequately informed (64.4%) and of uncertainty (58.9%). Most participants judged the intervention to be helpful in preparing them to make a decision.

Conclusion: Even though the intervention was perceived as helpful preparation for decision-making, it did not bring about any improvement in the high level of decisional conflict. With the continual development of new treatments and the associated increase in prognostic uncertainty, there is an important role for individualized patient information and the training of physicians in how to deal with uncertainty.

肺癌患者的海德堡决策辅助(HELP) -一项随机对照试验的发现。
背景:晚期肺癌代表了肿瘤学参与性决策的挑战。由于生存预后有限,必须不断权衡越来越多和复杂的治疗方案与脆弱性、生活质量和生命终结的问题。方法:这项随机对照试验,对138例患者进行,涉及决策辅助与决策指导的使用与标准治疗的比较。主要终点是明确患者的个人态度,通过决策冲突量表进行评估。次要终点是自我效能、决策冲突、感知准备和决策参与以及焦虑/抑郁。采用描述性统计和组间比较对资料进行分析。该试验已进入德国临床试验注册(DRKS00028023)。结果:干预组与对照组在主要终点(患者对决策的个人态度的清晰度)方面差异无统计学意义(IG:中位数/IQR: 41.67/47.92;CG:中位数/IQR: 33.33/43.75;P = 0.35)。描述性统计数据显示,在整个研究参与者群体中,决策冲突的水平很高:57.6%的人有非常高的决策冲突水平,特别是在感觉信息不充分(64.4%)和不确定(58.9%)方面。大多数参与者认为这种干预有助于他们做好做决定的准备。结论:尽管干预被认为有助于为决策做准备,但它并没有改善高水平的决策冲突。随着新治疗方法的不断发展和预后不确定性的增加,个性化患者信息和医生如何处理不确定性的培训具有重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Deutsches Arzteblatt international
Deutsches Arzteblatt international 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Deutsches Ärzteblatt International is a bilingual (German and English) weekly online journal that focuses on clinical medicine and public health. It serves as the official publication for both the German Medical Association and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. The journal is dedicated to publishing independent, peer-reviewed articles that cover a wide range of clinical medicine disciplines. It also features editorials and a dedicated section for scientific discussion, known as correspondence. The journal aims to provide valuable medical information to its international readership and offers insights into the German medical landscape. Since its launch in January 2008, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International has been recognized and included in several prestigious databases, which helps to ensure its content is accessible and credible to the global medical community. These databases include: Carelit CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Compendex DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database) EMNursing GEOBASE (Geoscience & Environmental Data) HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative) Index Copernicus Medline (MEDLARS Online) Medpilot PsycINFO (Psychological Information Database) Science Citation Index Expanded Scopus By being indexed in these databases, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International's articles are made available to researchers, clinicians, and healthcare professionals worldwide, contributing to the global exchange of medical knowledge and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信