Systematic Review of Decision Aids for the Management of Men With Localized Prostate Cancer - 11/04/18

Doi : 10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.022

Wenjie Zhong ^a,^* , Ben Smith ^b, Kayvan Haghighi ^a, Pascal Mancuso ^a
^a Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia
^b Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation (CONCERT), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

^*Address correspondence to: Wenjie Zhong, M.D., Liverpool Hospital, Corner of Elizabeth and Goulburn Street, Liverpool, NSW, 2170, Australia.Liverpool HospitalCorner of Elizabeth and Goulburn StreetLiverpoolNSW2170Australia

Abstract

A broader range of decisional tools should be investigated. This paper will update the decisional outcome data and assess the features of decisional tool. Literature search strictly followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Articles that cited Lin et al and Violette et al were searched. Features of decisional tools were analyzed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument criteria. The scores of the 31 decisional tools ranged from 6 to 15, which did not correlate proportionally with the positive decisional outcomes. Personal importance appeared to be a significant component. Multidisciplinary clinics are superior in improving decisional outcomes as they promote more at shared decision making.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.