Villalobos Matthias, Unsöld Laura, Deis Nicole, Behnisch Rouven, Siegle Anja, Thomas Michael
Heidelberg Thorax Clinic, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Internal Oncology, Thorax Clinic at Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Heidelberg, Germany; Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany; Applied Health and Nursing Sciences, in particular pediatric care, Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University (DHBW), Stuttgart, Germany.
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2024 Dec 27;121(26):861-867. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0228.
Advanced lung cancer typifies the challenges of shared decision-making in oncology. With a limited prognosis for survival, the increasingly numerous and complex treatment options must continually be weighed against issues of fragility, quality of life, and the end of life.
This randomized, controlled trial, carried out on 138 patients, concerned the use of a decision aid combined with decision coaching, versus standard care. The primary endpoint was clarity of the patient's personal attitude, as assessed on the Decisional Conflict Scale. The secondary endpoints were self-efficacy, decisional conflict, perceived preparedness and participation in decision-making, and anxiety/depression. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons. The trial was entered into the German registry of clinical trials (DRKS00028023).
No statistically significant difference with regard to the primary endpoint (clarity of the patient's personal attitude concerning the decision) was found in a comparison between the intervention group and the control group (IG: median/IQR: 41.67/47.92; CG: median/IQR: 33.33/43.75; p = 0.35). The descriptive statistics revealed a high level of decisional conflict in the overall group of study participants: 57.6% had a very high level of decisional conflict, composed in particular of the dimensions of feeling inadequately informed (64.4%) and of uncertainty (58.9%). Most participants judged the intervention to be helpful in preparing them to make a decision.
Even though the intervention was perceived as helpful preparation for decision-making, it did not bring about any improvement in the high level of decisional conflict. With the continual development of new treatments and the associated increase in prognostic uncertainty, there is an important role for individualized patient information and the training of physicians in how to deal with uncertainty.
晚期肺癌是肿瘤学中共同决策面临挑战的典型代表。由于生存预后有限,越来越多且复杂的治疗选择必须不断地与身体虚弱、生活质量和生命终结等问题进行权衡。
这项随机对照试验对138名患者进行,比较了使用决策辅助工具并结合决策指导与标准护理的效果。主要终点是根据决策冲突量表评估的患者个人态度的清晰度。次要终点包括自我效能感、决策冲突、决策准备和参与度以及焦虑/抑郁。数据采用描述性统计和组间比较进行分析。该试验已录入德国临床试验注册库(DRKS00028023)。
在干预组和对照组之间的比较中,未发现主要终点(患者对决策的个人态度清晰度)有统计学显著差异(干预组:中位数/四分位间距:41.67/47.92;对照组:中位数/四分位间距:33.33/43.75;p = 0.35)。描述性统计显示,研究参与者总体的决策冲突水平较高:57.6%的人决策冲突水平非常高,尤其体现在信息不足感(64.4%)和不确定性(58.9%)方面。大多数参与者认为该干预有助于他们为做出决策做好准备。
尽管该干预被认为有助于为决策做准备,但并未使高水平的决策冲突得到任何改善。随着新治疗方法的不断发展以及预后不确定性的相应增加,个性化的患者信息以及医生应对不确定性的培训具有重要作用。