1 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
2 Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Administration Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA.
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Apr 20;37(12):964-973. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.01091. Epub 2019 Mar 12.
To study the effectiveness of the Patient Preferences for Prostate Cancer Care (PreProCare) intervention in improving the primary outcome of satisfaction with care and secondary outcomes of satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice among patients with localized prostate cancer.
In this multicenter randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with localized prostate cancer to the PreProCare intervention or usual care. Outcomes were satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and were analyzed using repeated measures. We compared treatment choice across intervention groups by prostate cancer risk categories.
Between January 2014 and March 2015, 743 patients with localized prostate cancer were recruited and randomly assigned to receive PreProCare (n = 372) or usual care (n = 371). For the general satisfaction subscale, improvement at 24 months from baseline was significantly different between groups ( < .001). For the intervention group, mean scores at 24 months improved by 0.44 (SE, 0.06; < .001) from baseline. This improvement was 0.5 standard deviation, which was clinically significant. The proportion reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the intervention group, compared with the usual care group at 24 months ( < .05). Among low-risk patients, a higher proportion of the intervention group was receiving active surveillance, compared with the usual care group ( < .001).
Our patient-centered PreProCare intervention improved satisfaction with care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category. The majority of our participants had a high income, with implications for generalizability. Additional studies can evaluate the effectiveness of PreProCare as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.
研究前列腺癌患者护理偏好(PreProCare)干预在改善局部前列腺癌患者的主要护理满意度结果和次要结果(包括决策满意度、决策后悔度和治疗选择)方面的效果。
在这项多中心随机对照研究中,我们将局部前列腺癌患者随机分配到 PreProCare 干预组或常规护理组。结果包括护理满意度、决策满意度、决策后悔度和治疗选择。在基线和 3、6、12 和 24 个月进行评估,并使用重复测量进行分析。我们比较了干预组之间不同前列腺癌风险类别的治疗选择。
2014 年 1 月至 2015 年 3 月,我们招募了 743 名局部前列腺癌患者,并随机分配接受 PreProCare(n=372)或常规护理(n=371)。在总体满意度亚量表方面,从基线到 24 个月的改善在组间差异有统计学意义(<0.001)。对于干预组,24 个月的平均评分从基线提高了 0.44(SE,0.06;<0.001)。这种改善为 0.5 个标准差,具有临床意义。随着时间的推移,报告决策满意度和无后悔感的比例增加,干预组在 24 个月时高于常规护理组(<0.05)。在低危患者中,与常规护理组相比,干预组接受主动监测的比例更高(<0.001)。
我们的以患者为中心的 PreProCare 干预措施改善了护理满意度、决策满意度,减少了后悔感,并使治疗选择与风险类别一致。我们的大多数参与者收入较高,这对推广有一定影响。进一步的研究可以评估 PreProCare 作为改善不同环境下临床和患者报告结果的机制的有效性。