Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Integrating Patient Preference into Treatment Decisions for Men with Prostate Cancer at the Point of Care.

Johnson DC, Mueller DE, Deal AM, Dunn MW, Smith AB, Woods ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS, Nielsen ME. Integrating Patient Preference into Treatment Decisions for Men with Prostate Cancer at the Point of Care. The Journal of urology. 2016 Dec 1; 196(6):1640-1644.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions


PURPOSE: Men with clinically localized prostate cancer face an archetypal "preference sensitive" treatment decision. A shared decision making process incorporating patient values and preferences is paramount. We evaluated the benefit of a novel decision making application, and investigated associations between patient preferences and treatment choice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a novel, web based application that provides education, preference measurement and personalized decision analysis for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Preferences are measured using conjoint analysis. The application ranks treatment options according to their "fit" (expected value) based on clinical factors and personal preferences, and serves as the basis for shared decision making during the consultation. We administered the decisional conflict scale before and after completion of the application. Additionally, we compared post-visit perceptions of shared decision making between a baseline "usual care" cohort and a cohort seen after the application was integrated into clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 109 men completed the application before their consultation, and had decisional conflict measured before and after use. Overall decisional conflict decreased by 37% (p < 0.0001). Analysis of the decisional conflict subscales revealed statistically significant improvements in all 5 domains. Patients completing the decision making application (33) felt more included in (88% vs 57%, p = 0.01) and jointly responsible for (94% vs 52%, p < 0.0001) the decision about further treatment compared to those receiving usual care (24). More patients who completed the application strongly agreed that different treatment options were discussed (94% vs 74%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this web based intervention was associated with decreased decisional conflict and enhanced elements of shared decision making.

Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.