School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Cancer Outcomes and Public Policy Effectiveness Research Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut3Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 May;175(5):792-9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.63.
The current attitudes of prostate cancer specialists toward decision aids and their use in clinical practice to facilitate shared decision making are poorly understood.
To assess attitudes toward decision aids and their dissemination in clinical practice.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A survey was mailed to a national random sample of 1422 specialists (711 radiation oncologists and 711 urologists) in the United States from November 1, 2011, through April 30, 2012.
Respondents were asked about familiarity, perceptions, and use of decision aids for clinically localized prostate cancer and trust in various professional societies in developing decision aids. The Pearson χ2 test was used to test for bivariate associations between physician characteristics and outcomes.
Similar response rates were observed for radiation oncologists and urologists (44.0% vs 46.1%; P=.46). Although most respondents had some familiarity with decision aids, only 35.5% currently use a decision aid in clinic practice. The most commonly cited barriers to decision aid use included the perception that their ability to estimate the risk of recurrence was superior to that of decision aids (7.7% in those not using decision aids and 26.2% in those using decision aids; P<.001) and the concern that patients could not process information from a decision aid (7.6% in those not using decision aids and 23.7% in those using decision aids; P<.001). In assessing trust in decision aids established by various professional medical societies, specialists consistently reported trust in favor of their respective organizations, with 9.2% being very confident and 59.2% being moderately confident (P=.01).
Use of decision aids among specialists treating patients with prostate cancer is relatively low. Efforts to address barriers to clinical implementation of decision aids may facilitate greater shared decision making for patients diagnosed as having prostate cancer.
目前,前列腺癌专家对决策辅助工具及其在临床实践中促进共同决策的应用的态度了解甚少。
评估专家对决策辅助工具的态度及其在临床实践中的传播情况。
设计、设置和参与者:2011 年 11 月 1 日至 2012 年 4 月 30 日,一项调查通过邮件发送给美国的 1422 名专家(711 名放射肿瘤学家和 711 名泌尿科医生),进行了一项全国性的随机抽样。
受访者被问及他们对临床局限性前列腺癌的决策辅助工具的熟悉程度、看法和使用情况,以及对各种专业协会开发决策辅助工具的信任程度。使用 Pearson χ2 检验来检验医生特征与结果之间的双变量关联。
放射肿瘤学家和泌尿科医生的回复率相似(44.0%与 46.1%;P=.46)。尽管大多数受访者对决策辅助工具有些熟悉,但只有 35.5%在临床实践中使用决策辅助工具。使用决策辅助工具的最常见障碍包括他们认为自己估计复发风险的能力优于决策辅助工具(未使用决策辅助工具的医生中有 7.7%,使用决策辅助工具的医生中有 26.2%;P<.001),以及担心患者无法从决策辅助工具中处理信息(未使用决策辅助工具的医生中有 7.6%,使用决策辅助工具的医生中有 23.7%;P<.001)。在评估各种专业医学协会制定的决策辅助工具的信任程度时,专家们一致表示信任他们各自的组织,其中 9.2%非常有信心,59.2%有一定信心(P=.01)。
治疗前列腺癌患者的专家中,决策辅助工具的使用相对较低。努力解决决策辅助工具在临床实施中的障碍,可能有助于为被诊断患有前列腺癌的患者提供更多的共同决策。