Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Informed decision-making tools are recommended for men considering prostate cancer screening. We evaluated the extent to which use of an interactive, web-based decision aid was associated with decisional and screening outcomes. Participants (N = 253) were 57 (7.0) years old and completed telephone interviews at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months post-baseline. Tracking software captured minutes spent on the website (median = 33.9), sections viewed (median = 4.0/5.0), testimonials viewed (median = 4.0/6.0), and values clarification tool (VCT) use (77.3 %). In multivariable analyses, all four website use variables were positively associated with increased knowledge (p’s < 0.05). Complete VCT use and number of informational sections were positively associated with greater decisional satisfaction (p’s < 0.05). Decisional conflict and screening behavior were not associated with measures of website use. Increased use of informational content and interactive elements were related to improved knowledge and satisfaction. Methods to increase utilization of interactive website components may improve informed decision-making outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13): 1310-1319.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104(2): 125-132.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(13): 1320-1328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(11): 981-990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2013; 190: 419-426.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith RA, Brooks D, Cokkinides V, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2013: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines, current issues in cancer screening, and new guidance on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63(2): 88-105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wolf AM, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010; 60(2): 70-98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157(2): 120-134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(17): 1216-1220.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoffman RM, Couper MP, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, et al. Prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study). Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(17): 1611-1618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Rovner D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD001431.

  12. O’Connor AM, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Flood AB. Modifying unwarranted variations in health care: shared decision making using patient decision aids. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;Suppl Variation:VAR63–VAR72.

  13. PEW Internet & American Life Project. Generations 2010. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/12/16/generations-2010/. Accessed 3 April 2014.

  14. Ritterband LM, Thorndike FP, Cox DJ, Kovatchev BP, Gonder-Frederick LA. A behavior change model for internet interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2009; 38(1): 18-27.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ilic D, Risbridger GP, Green S. The informed man: attitudes and information needs on prostate cancer screening. J Mens Health Gend. 2005; 2(4): 414-420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ilic D, Murphy K, Green S. Perspectives on knowledge, information seeking and decision-making behaviour about prostate cancer among Australian men. J Mens Health. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jomh.2012.10.004.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE. Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urol. 2009; 74(5): 1058-1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor KL, Davis KM, Lamond T, et al. Use and evaluation of a CD-ROM-based decision aid for prostate cancer treatment decisions. Behav Med. 2010; 36(4): 130-140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. PEW Internet & American Life Project. Online Health Search 2006. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Online-Health-Search-2006.aspx. Accessed 3 April 2014.

  20. Couper MP, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler FJ Jr, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Use of the Internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: results from the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Mak. 2010; 30(5 Suppl): 106S-114S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, et al. Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(18): 1704-1712.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Allen JD, Othus MK, Hart A Jr, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-tailored decision aid to improve prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the take the wheel trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19(9): 2172-2186.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans R, Joseph-Williams N, Edwards A, et al. Supporting informed decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing on the web: an online randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2010; 12(3): e27.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti VJ. A randomized controlled trial comparing internet and video to facilitate patient education for men considering the prostate specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18(10): 781-787.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Frosch DL, Bhatnagar V, Tally S, Hamori CJ, Kaplan RM. Internet patient decision support: a randomized controlled trial comparing alternative approaches for men considering prostate cancer screening. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168(4): 363-369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ilic D, Egberts K, McKenzie JE, Risbridger G, Green S. Informing men about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of patient education materials. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23(4): 466-471.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Krist AH, Woolf SH, Johnson RE, Kerns JW. Patient education on prostate cancer screening and involvement in decision making. Ann Fam Med. 2007; 5(2): 112-119.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Volk RJ, Jibaja-Weiss ML, Hawley ST, et al. Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 73(3): 482-489.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kassan EC, Williams RM, Kelly SP, et al. Men’s use of an Internet-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. J Health Commun. 2012; 17(6): 677-697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Legare F, O’Connor AM, Graham ID, et al. Primary health care professionals’ views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework in practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 63(3): 380-390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Feldman-Stewart D, Tong C, Siemens R, et al. The impact of explicit values clarification exercises in a patient decision aid emerges after the decision is actually made: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Mak. 2012; 32(4): 616-626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, McTavish F, et al. Internet-based interactive support for cancer patients: are integrated systems better? J Commun. 2008; 58(2): 238-257.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Granchi TS, et al. Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: a randomized trial among patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2011; 84(1): 41-48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Richardson A, Graham AL, Cobb N, et al. Engagement promotes abstinence in a web-based cessation intervention: cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(1): e14.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dorfman CS, Williams RM, Kassan EC, et al. The development of a web- and a print-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010; 10: 12.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006; 333(7565): 417.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav. 2006; 33(3): 352-373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gattellari M, Ward JE. Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomised controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2003; 10(1): 27-39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Med Decis Mak. 1996; 16(1): 58-64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Connor AM. User Manual—Decisional Conflict Scale. 1993 [updated 2010]. Available at http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decisional_Conflict.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2014.

  41. Wilkes MS, Day FC, Srinivasan M, et al. Pairing physician education with patient activation to improve shared decisions in prostate cancer screening: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2013; 11(4): 324-334.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Eng TR, Gustafson DH. Wired for Health and Well-Being: the Emergence of Interactive Health Communication. Washington: Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sheridan SL, Griffith JM, Behrend L, Gizlice Z, Jianwen C, Pignone MP. Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial. Med Decis Mak. 2010; 30(4): E28-E39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kreps GL, Neuhauser L. New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 78(3): 329-336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants for their time spent participating in this study and thank Susan Marx for her administrative support. This was an investigator-initiated study funded by The National Cancer Institute (grant # R01 CA119168-01), Department of Defense (grant # PC051100). Additional support was provided by the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource and the LCCC Cancer Center Support Grant. The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study, nor in the interpretation and reporting of the study findings. The researchers were independent from the funders. All authors, external and internal, had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

CT, KD, SL, AS, SK, GL, and KLT declare that they have no conflicts of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Funding

The National Cancer Institute (Grant # R01 CA119168-01), Department of Defense (Grant # PC051100) to KLT. Additional support was provided by the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center (LCCC) Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource and the LCCC Cancer Center Support Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Department of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

    Catherine Tomko BA, Kimberly Davis PhD, Samantha Ludin BA, Scott Kelly MS, Aaron Stern BA & Kathryn L. Taylor PhD

  2. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics, and Biomathematics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA

    George Luta PhD

Authors
  1. Catherine Tomko BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly Davis PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samantha Ludin BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scott Kelly MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aaron Stern BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. George Luta PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kathryn L. Taylor PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn L. Taylor PhD.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: Clinicians should encourage the use of web-based decision aids to help patients become aware of the facts associated with medical tests and treatments and to aid informed decision making.

Policy: Web-based decision aids are a relatively inexpensive way to make a significant impact on decision-making outcomes among a large number of patients.

Research: Further research is needed to assess whether interactive components of websites play a key role in increasing patient engagement and in improving decision-making outcomes

Earlier versions of the results were presented at the 36th annual meeting of the American Society of Preventive Oncology, Washington, DC, March 2012.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tomko, C., Davis, K., Ludin, S. et al. Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 5, 189–197 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0301-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0301-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation