Search

Background: If communicated adequately, numerical decision-relevant information can support informed and shared decision making. Visual formats are recommended, but which format supports patients depending on their health literacy (HL) levels for specific decisions is unclear., Study Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate: 1) the effect of survival rates and side-effects presentation formats on comprehension and 'feeling informed'; 2) differential effects among women with higher/lower HL, with adjuvant systemic breast cancer therapy as case example., Methods: Two online experiments among women from the Dutch population without a history of breast cancer were conducted. Experiment 1 had a 3 (survival rate format: text block-bar graph-icon array) x 2 (HL: low-high) between-subjects design. Experiment 2 had a 5 (side-effects format: no probability information-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation-probability information in numbers with or without a visualisation accompanied by a description of the side-effects) x 2 (HL: low-high) design. Primary outcomes were comprehension and feeling informed (Experiment 2 only). Formats were previously designed in co-creation with patients., Results: In Experiment 1, presentation format did not affect gist or verbatim comprehension. Higher HL was associated with higher gist comprehension. Experiment 2 showed an interaction between presentation format and HL on 'feeling informed'. When provided with visualised probability information without a description of the side-effects, women with lower HL felt better informed than women with higher HL., Conclusion: Visual formats did not enhance comprehension of survival rate information beyond a well-designed text block format. However, none of the formats could overcome HL differences. When designing decision-relevant information, visualisations might not necessarily provide an advantage over structured numerical information for both patients with lower and higher HL. However, a deeper understanding of presenting side-effect information is warranted., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 van Strien-Knippenberg et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: To assess information and communication priorities of patients and healthcare professionals in Shared Decision Making about adjuvant systemic treatment of primary breast cancer and identify key decision-relevant information accordingly., Methods: Patients (N = 122) and professionals working with breast cancer patients (N = 118), of whom 38 were nurse practitioners and 32 nurses, were recruited using convenience sampling, and surveyed about information/communication aspects key to decision-making, using ranking assignments. We further posed a simple open question, questions about receiving population-based statistics versus personalized statistics concerning treatment outcomes, and their attitude and experience concerning Shared Decision Making. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and a qualitative analysis., Results: Both patients and professionals prioritized information about treatment outcomes (i.e., survival, recurrence) as key decision-relevant information for patients. Patients prioritized information about relatively severe treatment side-effects and late effects (e.g., blood clot, stroke), whilst professionals prioritized information about effects that occur relatively often (e.g., hair loss, fatigue). Patients specifically wanted to know if the benefit of treatment is worth the negative impact. Both groups prioritized personalized statistics over population-based statistics., Conclusions: Some differences between patients and professionals were found in information and communication priorities, specifically related to the different side-effects. It seems worthwhile to precisely address these side-effects in Shared Decision Making concerning adjuvant systemic treatment. Furthermore, it seems important to deliberate together on the question if expected benefit of treatment is worth the potential negative impact for the individual patient., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Domino Determann was working at ‘PATIENT+’ at the time of the study. PATIENT+ is part of the larger consortium; it is a company that provides the patient decision support tool for breast cancer adjuvant therapy that was studied (https://patientplus.info/). The other authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Risk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women's beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective., Methods: Phase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40-50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women's beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4-6 across sessions, 40-50 years, 2-3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54-62 years, 0-1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40-74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified., Results: Women in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density., Conclusions: The information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: To support patients in shared decision-making about treatment options, patient decision aids (PtDAs) usually provide benefit/harm information and value clarification methods (VCMs). Recently, personalized risk information from prediction models is also being integrated into PtDAs. This study aimed to design decision-relevant information (i.e., personalized survival rates, harm information and VCMs) about adjuvant breast cancer treatment in cocreation with patients, in a way that suits their needs and is easily understandable., Methods: Three cocreation sessions with breast cancer patients (N = 7-10; of whom N = 5 low health literate) were performed. Participants completed creative assignments and evaluated prototypes of benefit/harm information and VCMs. Prototypes were further explored through user testing with patients (N = 10) and healthcare providers (N = 10). The researchers interpreted the collected data, for example, creative and homework assignments, and participants' presentations, to identify key themes. User tests were transcribed and analysed using ATLAS.ti to assess the understanding of the prototypes., Results: Important information needs were: (a) need for overview/structure of information directly after diagnosis and; (b) need for transparent benefit/harm information for all treatment options, including detailed harm information. Regarding VCMs, patients stressed the importance of a summary/conclusion. A bar graph seemed the most appropriate way of displaying personalized survival rates; the impact of most other formats was perceived as too distressful. The concept of 'personalization' was not understood by multiple patients., Conclusions: A PtDA about adjuvant breast cancer treatment should provide patients with an overview of the steps and treatment options, with layers for detailed information. Transparent information about the likelihood of benefits and harm should be provided. Given the current lack of information on the likelihood of side effects/late effects, efforts should be made to collect and share these data with patients. Further quantitative studies are needed to validate the results and to investigate how the concept of 'personalization' can be communicated., Patient or Public Contribution: Ten breast cancer patients participated in three cocreation sessions to develop decision-relevant information. Subsequent user testing included 10 patients. The Dutch Breast Cancer Association (BVN) was involved as an advisor in the general study design., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)