Juraskova I, Butow P, Bonner C, Bell M L, Smith A B, Seccombe M, Boyle F, Reaby L, Cuzick J, Forbes J F
Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia.
Australia and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Australia University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2306, Australia.
Br J Cancer. 2014 Jul 8;111(1):1-7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.144. Epub 2014 Jun 3.
Decision aids may improve informed consent in clinical trial recruitment, but have not been evaluated in this context. This study investigated whether decision aids (DAs) can reduce decisional difficulties among women considering participation in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study-II (IBIS-II) trial.
The IBIS-II trial investigated breast cancer prevention with anastrazole in two cohorts: women with increased risk (Prevention), and women treated for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom participants were randomised to receive a DA (DA group) or standard trial consent materials (control group). Questionnaires were completed after deciding about participation in IBIS-II (post decision) and 3 months later (follow-up).
Data from 112 Prevention and 34 DCIS participants were analysed post decision (73 DA; 73 control); 95 Prevention and 24 DCIS participants were analysed at follow-up (58 DA; 61 control). There was no effect on the primary outcome of decisional conflict. The DCIS-DA group had higher knowledge post decision, and the Prevention-DA group had lower decisional regret at follow-up.
This was the first study to evaluate a DA in the clinical trial setting. The results suggest DAs can potentially increase knowledge and reduce decisional regret about clinical trial participation.
决策辅助工具可能会改善临床试验招募过程中的知情同意情况,但尚未在此背景下进行评估。本研究调查了决策辅助工具(DAs)是否能减少考虑参与国际乳腺癌干预研究-II(IBIS-II)试验的女性的决策困难。
IBIS-II试验在两个队列中研究了阿那曲唑预防乳腺癌的效果:风险增加的女性(预防组)和原位导管癌(DCIS)治疗后的女性。澳大利亚、新西兰和英国的参与者被随机分配接受决策辅助工具(决策辅助工具组)或标准试验同意材料(对照组)。在决定是否参与IBIS-II(决策后)以及3个月后(随访)完成问卷调查。
对112名预防组和34名DCIS参与者的决策后数据进行了分析(73名决策辅助工具组;73名对照组);对95名预防组和24名DCIS参与者进行了随访分析(58名决策辅助工具组;61名对照组)。对决策冲突的主要结果没有影响。DCIS-决策辅助工具组在决策后知识水平较高,预防-决策辅助工具组在随访时决策后悔程度较低。
这是第一项在临床试验环境中评估决策辅助工具的研究。结果表明,决策辅助工具可能会增加知识,并减少对参与临床试验的决策后悔。