Patient Perceptions of a Decision Support Tool for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer

Purpose. To evaluate patient perceptions of a Web-based decision aid for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods. We assessed patient perceptions of a multicomponent, Web-based decision aid with a preference elicitation/values clarification exercise using adaptive conjoint analysis, the generation of a summary report, and provision of information about localized prostate cancer treatment options. Using a think-aloud approach, we conducted 21 cognitive interviews with prostate cancer patients presented with the decision aid prior to seeing their urologist. Thematic content analysis was used to examine patient perceptions of the tool’s components and content prior to engaging in shared decision making with their clinician. Results. Five themes were identified: 1) patients had some negative emotional reactions to the tool, pointing out what they perceived to be unnecessarily negative framing and language used; 2) patients were forced to stop and think about preferences while going through the tool and found this deliberation to be useful; 3) patients were confused by the tool; 4) patients tried to discern the intent of the conjoint analysis questions; and 5) there was a disconnect between patients’ negative reactions while using the tool and a contrasting general satisfaction with the final “values profile” created by the tool. Conclusions. Studies are needed to explore the disconnect between patients’ expressing negative reactions while going through some components of decision aids but satisfaction with the final output. In particular, we hypothesize that this effect might be explained by cognitive biases such as choice-supportive bias, hindsight bias, and the “IKEA effect.” This is one of the first projects to elicit patient reactions while they were completing a decision aid, and we recommend further similar, qualitative postprocess evaluation studies. HIGHLIGHTS: We explored perceptions of a decision aid with education about localized prostate cancer treatment and preference elicitation using adaptive conjoint analysis. Patients found the tool useful but were also confused by it, tried to discern the intent of the questions, and expressed negative emotional reactions. In particular, there was a disconnect between patients’ negative reactions while using the tool and general satisfaction with the final values profile generated by the tool, which is an area for future research.