PARTNER version 1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
PARTNER- Putting men’s preferences at the centre of the doctor-patient relationship: The Prostate cAnceR TreatmeNt prEfeRences Test - Qualitative Phase
IRAS ID
272654
Contact name
Verity Watson
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 31 days
Research summary
Research Summary
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men worldwide. Men are typically divided into two groups based on the type of cancer found: localised prostate cancer (lPCa), where the cancer remains confined to the prostate and metastatic prostate cancer, where the cancer has spread beyond the prostate.
Choosing a treatment for lPCa is difficult because several distinct options are available. Each option has similar mortality rates but very different side effects and risks. The ‘best’ option depends on how individual men value these side effects. However, men are not well informed about the features of different treatments. Existing information sources present men with a lot of information on the different treatments, but do not help men compare across treatments. Furthermore, health professionals’ understanding of their patients’ treatment preferences might be incomplete.
The aim of this study is to develop a new type of information tool or Decision Aid Tool (DAT) to be used by both men and health professionals involved in lPCa treatment decisions.
The aim of the DAT is to enable men to build awareness of their treatment preferences and effectively communicate these treatment preferences to health care professionals. The DAT is designed to: i. remind men about the information they have already received; ii. increase men’s awareness of their own preferences through a series of hypothetical treatment choices; and iii. predict a man’s treatment preference based on his treatment choices and the results from previous research. The overall aim of the study is to develop a co-designed DAT which can be tested for effectiveness in a future pilot randomised control trial subject to funding.
Summary of Results
The project aimed to develop a decision aid (DA) to help men in the UK who are newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer make treatment decisions. The DA in this project was designed to be used alongside existing information sources and in a range of settings, including at home. The DA had two purposes. First, to enable men to build awareness of their treatment options and their preferences. Second, to help men to communicate these treatment preferences effectively to health care professionals.
The project had three stages. In stage 1 we used data from existing research studies to understand what was already known about men’s preferences for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. In stage 2, we developed a prototype DA. In stage 3, we refined the DA using a co-design process. We recruited clinicians and a specialist nurse to practitioner panels in 2021. We recruited treatment-experienced men to in-depth interviews in 2022. We recruited recently diagnosed men to interviews in late 2022 and during 2023. Below we summarise these interviews. We outline here topics that came up repeatedly in our conversations with people. You may feel that some things do not apply to you or other things we discussed are missing from this summary but be sure we are using all the information you gave us for the next stages of this study.
Overall, men found the information easy to read, informative and complementary to other information sources. Changes were made after each interview to make the DA clearer, improve the questions, and improve the overall user experience. Men found the presentation format helpful and the structured presentation of information useful. One aspect of the DA that most men found useful was the way in which information on risks and benefits was presented side-by-side. Men found the DA useful even if they had already formed an opinion on what treatment they would have. Men agreed that having an online tool they could use at home and go back to several times was useful.
REC name
North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 2
REC reference
21/NS/0089
Date of REC Opinion
8 Jul 2021
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion