Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Iterative Development of an Interactive Website to Support Shared Decision-Making in Metastatic Breast Cancer

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent treatment advances have resulted in significantly increased survival times following metastatic breast cancer (MBC) diagnosis. Novel treatment approaches–and their related side effects–have changed the landscape of MBC treatment decision-making. We developed a prototype of an online educational tool to prepare patients with MBC for shared decision-making with their oncologists. We describe the five phases of tool development: (1) in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews and (2) feedback on storyboards of initial content with patients with MBC and oncology providers. This was followed by three phases of iterative feedback with patients in which they responded to (3) initial, non-navigable website content and (4) a beta version of the full website. In the final phase (5), patients newly diagnosed with MBC (N = 6) used the website prototype for 1 week and completed surveys assessing acceptability, feasibility, treatment knowledge, preparation for decision-making, and self-efficacy for decision-making. Participants in Phase 1 characterized a cyclical process of MBC treatment decision-making and identified key information needs. Website content and structure was iteratively developed in Phases 2–4. Most participants in Phase 5 (n = 4) accessed the website 2–5 times. All participants who accessed the website at least once (n = 5) felt they learned new information from the website prototype and would recommend it to others newly-diagnosed with MBC. After using the website prototype, participants reported high preparation and self-efficacy for decision-making. This multiphase, iterative process resulted in a prototype intervention designed to support decision-making for MBC patients.

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

Data availability

The qualitative datasets analyzed during the current study will not be made available, given the conditions under which participants provided informed consent and the fact that qualitative interview data cannot be completely anonymized, even when aliases are used to replace names. Quantitative datasets will be made available upon on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Gallicchio L et al (2022) Estimation of the number of individuals living with metastatic cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 114(11):1476–1483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Conley CC, Bishop BT, Andersen BL (2016) Emotions and emotion regulation in breast cancer survivorship. Healthcare 4(3):56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Conley CC et al (2022) Barriers and facilitators to taking CDK4/6 inhibitors among patients with metastatic breast cancer: A qualitative study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 192(2):385–399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Santa-Maria CA, Gradishar WJ (2015) Changing treatment paradigms in metastatic breast cancer: lessons learned. JAMA Oncol 1(4):528–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Oswald LB et al (2021) A mixed-methods study of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor symptom burden and quality of life among metastatic breast cancer patients and providers. Cancer Med 10(14):4823–4831

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chou WY, Tiner J, Senft N, 2022 Emerging challenges in advanced cancer care: opportunities for enhancing patient-centered communication. Psychological Aspects of Cancer: A Guide to Emotional and Psychological Consequences of Cancer, Their Causes, and Their Management 207–218

  7. Masi D et al (2019) The “Preparation for Shared Decision-Making” Tool for Women With Advanced Breast Cancer: Qualitative Validation Study. J Particip Med 11(4):e16511

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith SK et al (2020) Four conversations: a randomized controlled trial of an online, personalized coping and decision aid for metastatic breast cancer patients. J Palliat Med 23(3):353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wan C et al (2021) Treatment decision making and financial toxicity in women with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 21(1):37–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fram SM (2013) The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. Qual Rep 18:1

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindlof, T. and B. Taylor, Qualitative Communication Research Methods. 4th ed. 2017, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

  13. Vindrola-Padros C, Johnson GA (2020) Rapid techniques in qualitative research: a critical review of the literature. Qual Health Res 30(10):1596–1604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Averill JB (2002) Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry. Qual Health Res 12(6):855–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bennett C et al (2010) Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns 78(1):130–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O'Connor, A. User Manual - Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. 1995 2002 November 22, 2023]; Available from: http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decision_SelfEfficacy.pdf.

  17. Spronk I et al (2018) The availability and effectiveness of tools supporting shared decision making in metastatic breast cancer care: a review. BMC Palliat Care 17:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rocque GB et al (2019) What is important when making treatment decisions in metastatic breast cancer? A qualitative analysis of decision-making in patients and oncologists. Oncologist 24(10):1313–1321

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Alfieri, S., et al., 2022 A qualitative study on the needs of women with metastatic breast cancer. J Cancer Educ p. 1–10

  20. van de Water, L.F., et al., 2023 Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial. Medical decision making p. 0272989X231208448

  21. Carhuapoma LR et al (2021) Employing a mobile health decision aid to improve decision-making for patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners/proxies: the CHAMPION randomized controlled trial study design. Trials 22(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pew Research Center. Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet. Fact Sheets: Tech Adoption Trends 2024 January 31, 2024 March 27, 2024]; Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/.

  23. O’Neill SC et al (2021) Characterizing patient-oncologist communication in genomic tumor testing: The 21-gene recurrence score as an exemplar. Patient Educ Couns 104(2):250–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yousefi Nooraie R et al (2021) The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond). Health Res Policy Syst 19:1–10

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a Pfizer Independent Education Grant (MPIs: O’Neill & Conley) and the National Cancer Institute (K08CA270402, PI: Conley; T32CA261787: O’Neill, Abduljawad). This research was also supported by the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center’s Survey, Recruitment, and Biospecimen Collection Shared Resource (SRBSR), which is partially supported by the National Cancer Institute (P30CA051008, PI: Weiner).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Claire C. Conley, Sophia Cumbo, Jacqueline Chavez Ochoa, Afton Boles, Jennifer D. Rodriguez, Nicole Schwab, Suzan Abduljawad, Claudine Isaacs & Suzanne C. O’Neill

  2. People Designs, Durham, NC, USA

    David Farrell

Authors
  1. Claire C. Conley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophia Cumbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacqueline Chavez Ochoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Afton Boles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jennifer D. Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicole Schwab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Suzan Abduljawad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Claudine Isaacs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Suzanne C. O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire C. Conley.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures were approved by the Georgetown University Institutional Review Board (IRB #00003415). This study confirms to the standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and US Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.

Consent to participate

All persons gave their informed consent prior to study participation.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 973 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Conley, C.C., Cumbo, S., Chavez Ochoa, J. et al. Iterative Development of an Interactive Website to Support Shared Decision-Making in Metastatic Breast Cancer. J Canc Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02451-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-024-02451-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation