{"title":"Characterizing the impact of novel patient-centered pathology reports on men undergoing prostate biopsy: The PAPR randomized controlled trial.","authors":"R Kumar,K Lajkosz,J Hiemstra,A Finelli,R Hamilton,A Zlotta,A Berlin,J Papadakos,S Ghai,D Wiljer,S Alibhai,A Silberman,J Kreidstein,L Calicchia,N Perlis","doi":"10.1097/ju.0000000000004684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES\r\nTo improve patient-centered communication, some institutions provide online portals for patients to immediately access medical results. However, early access to certain reports could harm patients. Standard pathology reports (SPRs), vital for clinical decision making, can be difficult for patients to understand and contextualize. Our group designed patient-centered pathology reports (PAPR) and tested them for patients undergoing prostate biopsy.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nBetween February 2023 to January 2024, 121 men were randomly assigned to receive either SPR or SPR + PAPR. Prior to follow-up encounters, participants completed a questionnaire examining their understanding of the reports and experience interacting with them and a validated anxiety questionnaire (STAIS-5). Following the visit, patients completed a validated shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nTwenty-four patients were excluded with unanswered questionnaires leaving 97 patients with evaluable data. There was no difference in shared decision making between arms. Patients receiving SPR+PAPR agreed that their reports were patient friendly (74% vs. 20%, p<0.001), easy to understand (71% vs. 32%, p<0.001), improved experience (83% vs. 60%, p=0.029), empowered control (65% vs. 30%, p=0.001), reduced anxiety (81% vs. 31%, p<0.001), and helped communicating results to others (77% vs. 42%, p<0.001). The SPR+PAPR group more accurately understood their results (median 4 vs. 3 correct answers; p=0.003) and treatment options (63% vs. 13%, p<0.001). Anxiety increased less in the SPR+PAPR arm.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nWhen comparing patient-centered to standard pathology reports, we did not see evidence of an impact on shared decision-making, but there were statistically significant differences in patient understanding and experience. Generalizability is limited by high resources needed to create PAPRs.","PeriodicalId":501636,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Urology","volume":"95 1","pages":"101097JU0000000000004684"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000004684","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
To improve patient-centered communication, some institutions provide online portals for patients to immediately access medical results. However, early access to certain reports could harm patients. Standard pathology reports (SPRs), vital for clinical decision making, can be difficult for patients to understand and contextualize. Our group designed patient-centered pathology reports (PAPR) and tested them for patients undergoing prostate biopsy.
METHODS
Between February 2023 to January 2024, 121 men were randomly assigned to receive either SPR or SPR + PAPR. Prior to follow-up encounters, participants completed a questionnaire examining their understanding of the reports and experience interacting with them and a validated anxiety questionnaire (STAIS-5). Following the visit, patients completed a validated shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM-Q-9).
RESULTS
Twenty-four patients were excluded with unanswered questionnaires leaving 97 patients with evaluable data. There was no difference in shared decision making between arms. Patients receiving SPR+PAPR agreed that their reports were patient friendly (74% vs. 20%, p<0.001), easy to understand (71% vs. 32%, p<0.001), improved experience (83% vs. 60%, p=0.029), empowered control (65% vs. 30%, p=0.001), reduced anxiety (81% vs. 31%, p<0.001), and helped communicating results to others (77% vs. 42%, p<0.001). The SPR+PAPR group more accurately understood their results (median 4 vs. 3 correct answers; p=0.003) and treatment options (63% vs. 13%, p<0.001). Anxiety increased less in the SPR+PAPR arm.
CONCLUSIONS
When comparing patient-centered to standard pathology reports, we did not see evidence of an impact on shared decision-making, but there were statistically significant differences in patient understanding and experience. Generalizability is limited by high resources needed to create PAPRs.
简介与目的为改善以患者为中心的沟通,一些机构为患者提供了即时获取医疗结果的在线门户。然而,过早接触某些报告可能会伤害患者。标准病理报告(SPRs)对临床决策至关重要,但患者很难理解和理解。本小组设计了以患者为中心的病理报告(PAPR),并对接受前列腺活检的患者进行了检测。方法:2023年2月至2024年1月,121名男性随机接受SPR或SPR + PAPR治疗。在后续接触之前,参与者完成了一份调查问卷,检查他们对报告的理解和与他们互动的经历,以及一份经过验证的焦虑问卷(STAIS-5)。随访后,患者完成一份有效的共同决策问卷(SDM-Q-9)。结果排除24例未回答问卷的患者,留下97例可评价资料。两军在共同决策方面没有差别。接受SPR+PAPR的患者认为他们的报告对患者友好(74%对20%,p<0.001),易于理解(71%对32%,p<0.001),改善了体验(83%对60%,p=0.029),增强了控制(65%对30%,p=0.001),减少了焦虑(81%对31%,p<0.001),并有助于将结果传达给他人(77%对42%,p<0.001)。SPR+PAPR组更准确地理解了他们的结果(正确率中位数为4比3;P =0.003)和治疗方案(63% vs. 13%, P <0.001)。SPR+PAPR组的焦虑增加较少。结论:在比较以患者为中心与标准病理报告时,我们没有发现对共同决策有影响的证据,但在患者的理解和经验方面存在统计学上的显著差异。泛化性受到创建papr所需的大量资源的限制。