Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Use of a computerised decision aid (DA) to inform the decision process on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colorectal cancer: development and preliminary evaluation
  1. A Miles1,
  2. I Chronakis2,
  3. J Fox2,3,
  4. A Mayer4
  1. 1Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK
  2. 2University College London, London, UK
  3. 3Oxford University, Oxford, UK
  4. 4Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr A Miles; ae.miles{at}bbk.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To develop a computerised decision aid (DA) to inform the decision process on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colorectal cancer, and examine perceived usefulness, acceptability and areas for improvement of the DA.

Design Mixed methods.

Setting Single outpatient oncology department in central London.

Participants Consecutive recruitment of 13 patients with stage II colorectal cancer, 12 of whom completed the study. Inclusion criteria were: age >18 years; complete resection for stage II adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; patients within 14–56 days after surgery; no contraindication to adjuvant chemotherapy; able to give written informed consent. Exclusion criterion: previous chemotherapy.

Primary outcomes Patient perceived usefulness (assessed by the PrepDM questionnaire) and acceptability of the DA.

Results PrepDM scores, measuring the perceived usefulness of the DA in preparing the patient to communicate with their doctor and make a health decision, were above those reported in other patient groups. Patient acceptability scores were also high; however, interviews showed that there was evidence of a lack of understanding of key information among some patients, in particular their baseline risk of recurrence, the net benefit of combination chemotherapy and the rationale for having chemotherapy when cancer had apparently gone.

Conclusions Patients found the DA acceptable and useful in supporting their decision about whether or not to have adjuvant chemotherapy. Suggested improvements for the DA include: sequential presentation of treatment options (eg, no treatment vs 1 drug, 1 drug vs 2 drugs) to enhance patient understanding of the difference between combination and single therapy, diagrams to help patients understand the rationale for chemotherapy to prevent a recurrence and inbuilt checks on patient understanding of baseline risk of recurrence and net benefit of chemotherapy.

  • CHEMOTHERAPY
  • QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
  • decision aid
  • adjuvant
  • patient communication

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • ▸ Additional material is available. To view please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012935).

  • Twitter Follow Ioannis Chronakis @chronakis

  • Contributors AMa (guarantor) had the original idea for the study. AMa, IC and AMi designed the trial variables and formed the investigator group which obtained the funding. AMa, IC, JF and AMi developed the decision aid. AMa and AMi were responsible for overseeing study implementation and data collection. They also carried out the analysis, and drafted the manuscript, which was revised by all authors.

  • Funding This research was supported by the Royal Free Charity.

  • Disclaimer All researchers were independent of the funders. The study sponsor and funder played no role in study design; the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the article for publication.

  • Competing interests Over the duration of the project, IC was funded by a grant from the Royal Free Charity and employed by UCL. The Royal Free Charity funded the development of the EPAD software. IC is now employed by Deontics. He is a founder and a shareholder of the company. Deontics is a commercial provider of clinical decision support software. This company was set up after the study reported in the paper was completed. ePAD (the DA tool) was developed using software now owned by Deontics. Over the duration of the project, JF was employed by UCL and Oxford Universities. The Royal Free Charity funded the development of the ePAD software. JF is now employed part-time by Deontics. He is a founder and a shareholder of the company.

  • Ethics approval Ethical approval was given by the London Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee (REC 11/LO/0888).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.