To determine if particular values clarification exercises included in a patient decision aid had discernible impact on postdecisional regret in patients with early-stage prostate cancer.
Methods
A multicenter randomized controlled trial compared 2 versions of a computerized patient decision aid: only structured information compared to the structured information plus values clarification exercises. Assessments were conducted during the decision aid visit; telephone follow-up interviews were conducted when patients made their decisions with their physician, 3 months after completing treatment, and >1 year later (per a mailing). Outcome measures included the Decisional Conflict Scale, the Preparation for Decision Making Scale, and the Decision Regret Scale.
Results
A total of 156 patients participated, 75 provided information only and 81 provided information plus values clarification exercises. The groups did not differ significantly on any outcome evaluated at the decision aid visit; in both groups, decisional conflict decreased immediately after using the decision aid. Between-group differences emerged after the decision was actually made. The values clarification exercises group reported higher Preparation for Decision Making Scale scores at the decision follow-up and at the >1-year follow-up. Regret did not differ significantly between groups at the 3-month follow-up but was lower for the values clarification exercises group than for the information group at the >1-year follow-up.
Conclusion
The results suggest that the values clarification exercises led to better preparation for decision making and to less regret. The impact, however, only emerged after the decision was made.
O’ConnorAMStaceyDEntwistleV. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2:CD001431.
2.
O’ConnorAMRostomAFisetV. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ. 1999;319(7212):731–4.
3.
BekkerHThorntonJGAireyCM. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(1):1–156.
4.
MolenaarSSprangersMAGPostma-SchuitFCE. Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1):112–27.
5.
RohanMJ. A rose by any name? The values construct. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2000;4(3):255–77.
6.
RokeachM. The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: Free Press; 1973.
7.
SundstroemGA. Information search and decision making: the effects of information displays. In: MontgomeryHSvensonO eds. Process and Structure in Human Decision Making. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 1989. p 209–23.
8.
DavisonBJKrikPDegnerLFHassardTH. Information and patient participant in screening for prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;37:255–63.
9.
DolanJGFrisinaS. Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(2):125–39.
10.
MurrayEDavisHTaiSSCoulterAGrayAHainesA. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. BMJ. 2001;323(7311):493–6.
11.
WongSSMThorntonJGGboladeBBekkerHL. A randomised controlled trial of a decision-aid leaflet to facilitate women’s choice between pregnancy termination methods. BJOG. 2006;113(6):688–94.
12.
Man-Son-HingMLaupacisAO’ConnorAM. A patient decision aid regarding antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999;282(8):737–43.
13.
MontgomeryAAFaheyTPetersTJ. A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53:446–53.
14.
MontgomeryAAEmmettCLFaheyT. Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;334(7607):1305.
15.
SheridanSLGriffithJMBehrendLGizliceZCaiJPignoneMP. Effect of adding a value clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: A randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:E28–E39.
16.
O’ConnorAMWellsGATugwellPLaupacisAElmslieTDrakeE. The effects of an “explicit” values clarification exercise in a woman’s decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. Health Expect. 1999;2:21–32.
17.
GoelVSawkaCThielECGortEHO’ConnorAM. Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):1–6.
18.
O’ConnorAMTugwellPWellsGA. Randomized trial of a portable, self-administrated decision aid for postmenopausal women considering long-term preventive hormone therapy. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:295–303.
19.
DodinSLegareFDaudelinGTetroeJO’ConnorA. [Making a decision about hormone replacement therapy: a randomized controlled trial] [French]. Can Fam Physician. 2001;47:1586–93.
20.
AbhyankarPBekkerHLSummersBAVelikovaG. Why values elicitation techniques enable people to make informed decisions about cancer trial participation?Health Expect. 2010;14(suppl 1):20–32.
21.
CarrollPRLeeKLFuksZYKantoffPW. Cancer of the prostate. In: DeVitaVTJrHellmanSRosenbergSA, eds. Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 6th ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p 1418–79.
22.
O’RourkeMEGerminoBB. Prostate cancer treatment decisions: a focus group exploration. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1998;25(1):97–104.
23.
SlovicP. An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Thinking. Vol 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1990.
24.
NormanDABobrowDG. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cogn Psychol. 1975;7:44–64.
25.
Feldman-StewartDBrundageMDVan ManenL. A decision aid for men with early-stage prostate cancer: theoretical basis and a test by surrogate patients. Health Expect. 2001;4:221–34.
26.
SvensonO. Values and affect in human decision making: a differentiation and consolidation theory perspective. In: SchneiderSLShanteauJ eds. Emerging Perspective on Judgment and Decision Making Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
27.
SvensonOBenthornLJ. Consolidation processes in decision making: post-decision changes in attractiveness of alternatives. J Econ Psychol. 1992;13:315–27.
28.
SvensonORayoAOAndersenMSandbergASvahlinI. Post-decision consolidation, as a function of the instructions to the decision maker and of the decision problem. Acta Psychol. 1994;87:181–97.
29.
SvensonOJakobssonM. Creating coherence in real-life decision processes: reasons, differentiation and consolidation. Scand J Psychol. 2010;51:93–102.
30.
SvensonOHillT. Turning prior disadvantages into advantages: differentiation and consolidation in real-life decision making. In: RaynerRCrozierWRSvensonO eds. Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations. London, UK: Routledge;1997.
31.
Feldman-StewartDBrundageMDVan ManenLSvensonO. Patient-focussed decision-making in early-stage prostate cancer: Insights from a cognitively based decision aid. Health Expect. 2004;7:126–41.
32.
SvensonO. Process descriptions of decision making. Org Behav Hum Perform. 1979;23:86–112.
33.
Feldman-StewartDBrennenstuhlSBrundageMDRoquesT. An explicit values clarification task: developmental and validation. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(3):350–6.
34.
BellD. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res. 1982;30(5):961–81.
35.
ConnellyTZeelendbergM. Regret in decision making. Psychol Sci. 2002;11(6):212–6.
36.
GilbertDTMorewedgeCKRisenJLWilsonTD. Looking forward to looking backward: the misinterpretation of regret. Psychol Sci. 2003;15(5):346–50.
37.
GilovichTMedvecVH. The experience of regret: what, when, and why?Psychol Rev. 1995;102:379–95.
38.
HildenJGlasziouP. Regret graphs, diagnostic uncertainty and Youden’s index. Stat Med. 1996;15:969–86.
39.
LarrickRP. Motivational factors in decision theories: the role of self protection. Psychol Bull. 1993;113(3):440–50.
40.
LoomesGSugdenR. Some implications of a more general form of regret theory. J Econ Theory. 1987;41:270–87.
41.
LoomesGSugdenR. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J. 1982;92:805–24.
42.
O’ConnorAM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25–30.
43.
BennettCGrahamIDKristjanssonEKearingSAClayKFO’ConnorAM. Validation of a preparation of decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:130–3.
44.
BrehautJO’ConnorAMWoodTJ. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:281–92.
45.
IBM SPSS Statistics [computer program]. Version 19. Somers, NY: IBM Corporation; 2010.
46.
SvensonO. Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: a frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychol. 1992;80:143–68.
47.
ShafirE. Choosing versus rejecting: why some options are both better and worse than others’. Mem Cognit. 1993;21(4):546–56.
RebJ. Regret aversion and decision process quality: effects of regret salience on decision process carefulness. Org Behav Hum Resources. 2008;105:169–82.
50.
BekkerHLHewisonJThorntonJG. Applying decision analysis to facilitate informed decision making about prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Prenatal Diagn. 2004;24:265–75.
51.
Feldman-StewartDBrundageMDSiemensRSkarsgardD. A randomized controlled trial comparing two educational booklets on prostate cancer. Can J Urol. 2006;13(6):3321–6.
52.
ShafferVAHulseyL. Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment. Judg Decis Making. 2009;4(2):141–6.
53.
DavisonBJGoldenbergSL. Decisional regret and quality of life after participating in medical decision-making for early-stage prostate cancer. Br J Urol. 2003;91(1):14–7.
54.
DavisonBJSoAIGoldenbergSL. Quality of life, sexual function and decisional regret at 1 year after surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007;100(4):780–5.
55.
BekkerHL. Using decision-making theory to inform clinical practice. In: ElwynGEdwardsA eds. Shared decision-making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. 2nd ed.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2009. p 45–52.
56.
DurandMAStielMBoivinJElwynG. Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71:125–35.
57.
NelsonWLHanPKJFagerlinAStefanekMUbelPA. Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:609–18.
58.
SepuchaKOzanneESilviaKPartridgeAMulleyAG. An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;65:261–9.
59.
KennedyADM. On what basis should the effectiveness of decision aids be judged?Health Expect. 2003;6(3):255–68.
