Patient perceptions of balance in prostate cancer screening decision aids

Purpose. Recent reports reveals that studies of decision aids reported concern about the balance and accuracy of information included in decision aids. This study explores measures of balance in patient decision aids through a review of prostate cancer screening decision aid studies and analysis of patients’ rating of a patient decision aid for prostate cancer screening. ^ Methods. A data-abstraction form was used to collect the key characteristics, pertaining to balance, of studies included in the review. The key characteristics included (1) sample characteristics (age, race, family history of prostate cancer, and education), (2) description of the decision aid and how it was implemented, and (3) if a measure of balance was used for process evaluation and the rating. A summary table was used to report the findings. Deidentified data was received from a decision aid control trial and logistic regression analysis was used to test the association between the dependent variable (balance) and the independent variables (age, family history, race, screening preference at baseline, education, health insurance status). ^ Conclusion. Three sociodemographic variables remained significant in the final regression model: African American race, education and PSA history. Further research is needed to determine if these variables can predict a man’s perception of balance in prostate cancer screening decision aids. If a patient’s perceptions of balance can be predicted based on specific characteristics, patient report may not be the most objective method of evaluating the acceptability of a decision.^

Affect and cognition measures in preference-based decisions: Validity testing of the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale and a decision-specific anxiety measure with men eligible for prostate cancer screening

Background. At present, prostate cancer screening (PCS) guidelines require a discussion of risks, benefits, alternatives, and personal values, making decision aids an important tool to help convey information and to help clarify values. Objective: The overall goal of this study is to provide evidence of the reliability and validity of a PCS anxiety measure and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Methods. Using data from a randomized, controlled PCS decision aid trial that measured PCS anxiety at baseline and DCS at baseline (T0) and at two-weeks (T2), four psychometric properties were assessed: (1) internal consistency reliability, indicated by factor analysis intraclass correlations and Cronbach's α; (2) construct validity, indicated by patterns of Pearson correlations among subscales; (3) discriminant validity, indicated by the measure's ability to discriminate between undecided men and those with a definite screening intention; and (4) factor validity and invariance using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Results. The PCS anxiety measure had adequate internal consistency reliability and good construct and discriminant validity. CFAs indicated that the 3-factor model did not have adequate fit. CFAs for a general PCS anxiety measure and a PSA anxiety measure indicated adequate fit. The general PCS anxiety measure was invariant across clinics. The DCS had adequate internal consistency reliability except for the support subscale and had adequate discriminate validity. Good construct validity was found at the private clinic, but was only found for the feeling informed subscale at the public clinic. The traditional DCS did not have adequate fit at T0 or at T2. The alternative DCS had adequate fit at T0 but was not identified at T2. Factor loadings indicated that two subscales, feeling informed and feeling clear about values, were not distinct factors. Conclusions. Our general PCS anxiety measure can be used in PCS decision aid studies. The alternative DCS may be appropriate for men eligible for PCS. Implications: More emphasis needs to be placed on the development of PCS anxiety items relating to testing procedures. We recommend that the two DCS versions be validated in other samples of men eligible for PCS and in other health care decisions that involve uncertainty. ^