Biomedical subjects

Michael D Brundage

Publications and source records attributed to Michael D Brundage.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

A purpose-based evaluation of information for patients: an approach to measuring effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, internal reliability, and validity, of an assessment tool, purpose-based information assessment (PIA), that we had developed to evaluate how effectively information provided to patients addresses their individual purposes for the information. The study also demonstrated potential novel insight gained by the PIA assessment. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-two patients and family members were provided with a booklet on early-stage prostate cancer and its treatment options, in the context of a clinical trial comparing two booklets. Using the PIA, participants rated the importance (4-point Likert scale) of each of six previously identified common purposes for such information: to organize their thoughts, to understand their situation, to decide on treatment, to plan their future, to provide emotional support to others, and to discuss issues. Participants then rated how much their booklet helped address each of their purposes (4-point Likert scale). Evaluations were returned by mail. This report assesses the PIA evaluation of one of the booklets. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six (86%) participants returned evaluations. Participants wanted information for a mean of 5.8 purposes (range 2-7); 72.5% rated the booklet at different levels of helpfulness across their purposes. The assessment showed internal reliability on three constructs tested, and convergent validity on 10 of 11 tested. PIA's individualized purpose-based approach revealed how an overall assessment could be misleading: overall, the booklet was more effective at helping readers decide than at helping them plan (64.7% versus 55.8%, respectively, rated the booklet as "helpful" or better). However, among readers who rated the two purposes as "very important", the booklet had a mean helpfulness rating of 1.95 for deciding compared to a mean of 2.02 for planning. The result suggests that the booklet was not better at helping people decide than at helping them plan, for the readers who most needed the help. CONCLUSION: The PIA seems reliable and valid and adequately sensitive. The individualized purpose-based approach to assessing information appears to provide more specific feedback and more insights into its effectiveness than a single, global evaluation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Developers of information source or educational tools for patients can use an individualized purpose-based assessment, such as the PIA, to identify strengths and limitations of the tools more precisely than global assessments.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

An explicit values clarification task: development and validation.

OBJECTIVES: (a) To determine which of two values clarification exercises (VCE), based on theoretical decision rules used naturally by people, would be more helpful to patients making a treatment decision and (b) to evaluate the convergent validity of the most helpful VCE when part of a decision aid for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer. METHODS: Two studies were completed. Study 1: Ninety community volunteers were assigned at random to one of three groups and all made a hypothetical treatment decision. Two groups received VCEs, one with a summary and one without, and the third was a control group. Study 2: In a multi-centre phase II trial, 69 patients used the decision aid that included the exercise ranked most helpful in Study 1. Decision aid assessments included the decisional conflict scale, treatment valuation assessment and regret. RESULTS: Study 1: Most participants in each group ranked the VCE with the summary as most helpful. Study 2: VCE outputs, such as the size of the summary, were associated in predictable ways with the decision aid assessments. CONCLUSION: The VCE ranked most helpful in Study 1 showed convergent validity with decision aid assessments. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: With the interpretation of the VCE outputs now validated, a randomized controlled trial is required to determine if the exercise helps patients more than the aid without the exercise.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

Predictive validity of five comorbidity indices in prostate carcinoma patients treated with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is important to consider in clinical research on curative prostate carcinoma because of the role of competing risks. Five chart-based comorbidity indices were assessed for their ability to predict survival. METHODS: This was a case-cohort study of prostate carcinoma patient cohort treated with curative intent in Toronto and Southeast Cancer Care Ontario regions between 1990 and 1996; the subcohort was drawn from these men, whereas cases were cohort members who died from causes other than prostate carcinoma. Comorbidity data were obtained from medical charts (269 subjects). Vital status, age, area of residence, and socioeconomic status information were available. Predictive validity was quantified by the percent variance explained (PVE) over and above age using proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: The Chronic Disease Score (CDS) (PVE = 11.3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.5-22.8%), Index of Coexistent Disease (ICED) (PVE = 9.0%; 95% CI, 2.9-17.9%), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) (PVE = 7.2%; 95% CI, 1.4-17.1%), Kaplan-Feinstein Index (PVE = 4.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-12.8%), and Charlson Index (PVE = 3.8%; 95% CI, 0.3-10.9%) each explained some outcome variability beyond age. PVE differences among indices were not statistically significant. A comorbidity identified at the time of cancer diagnosis was the cause of death in 59.2% of cases (75% for cardiac or vascular causes). CONCLUSIONS: The better-performing, more comprehensive indices (CDS, ICED, and CIRS) would be useful in measuring and controlling for comorbidity in this setting. The CDS was easiest to apply and explained the most outcome variability.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

A randomized controlled trial comparing two educational booklets on prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the helpfulness of two educational aids or booklets on early-stage prostate cancer. METHOD: Participating consecutive patients and a family member, in three centres, received one of two booklets, one produced by AstraZeneca (AZ), the other produced by us (CCE); the patient and family shared a booklet but were separate study participants. The primary outcome was the Purpose-based Information Assessment completed after participants read their booklet; they rated the importance (4-point Likert scale) of six potential purposes for the information: to help organize their thoughts, understand their situations, decide on treatment, plan, provide emotional support to others, and discuss issues. Each participant then rated how helpful their booklet was (4-point Likert scale) in addressing each purpose they had rated above the lowest importance category. Participants mailed in their responses. RESULTS: Complete data were received from 308 (81%) of those who consented to the study: 152 in the CCE group and 156 in the AZ group. The CCE booklet was read for a longer time [chi(2) = 28.61, p = 0.00] but was easier to find information in chi(2) = 7.6, p = 0.05]. Although for each purpose, most readers rated each booklet in one of the top two (of four) helpfulness categories, the CCE booklet was rated more helpful for: organizing [chi(2) = 30.49, p = 0.00], understanding [chi(2) = 12.07, p = .007], deciding [chi(2) = 9.96, p = 0.02] and planning [chi(2) = 18.67, p = 0.00]. CONCLUSIONS: High helpfulness ratings of both booklets suggest that patients benefit from education aids while differences in the booklet ratings suggest that aids are not equally helpful. The CCE booklet, the more helpful booklet of this study, is a systematically developed education aid available to urologists in Canada.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Men considering a hypothetical treatment for prostate cancer: a comparison to patients.

BACKGROUND: In facilitating informed decision making about PSA screening, men are often asked to consider the potential consequences of the test, including a diagnosis of prostate cancer and how they would want to be treated. However, there is no empirical evidence thus far demonstrating that men are able to consider this hypothetical situation in a realistic manner. PURPOSE: To compare the features (attributes) of treatments that are important to non-patient men considering a hypothetical diagnosis of prostate cancer with those deemed important to men actually diagnosed with early-stage disease. METHODS: Two groups of men went through a decision aid interview to help them choose between treatment options for early-stage prostate cancer: non-patient men who imagined themselves to be diagnosed with the disease, and newly diagnosed patients. During the interview participants identified features of the treatment and disease that were important to their decisions. RESULTS: The percentage of non-patients and patients that thought particular attributes were important was correlated: r (33) = 0.77, p < 0.01. The effects on bladder and bowel functioning were considered important to >or=50% of each group. In addition to the 22 attributes initially presented, 49% of non-patients and 67% of patients identified additional attributes as being important to their decision. Eight (42%) of the 19 additional attributes were identified by non-patients and patients alike. CONCLUSIONS: The group of non-patient men provided a close approximation to the group of newly diagnosed men with respect to the attributes identified as being important to their treatment decisions for early-stage prostate cancer, suggesting that the consideration of what is important to the decision by non-patient men is realistic.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

What do we know about facilitating patient communication in the cancer care setting?

Throughout the cancer diagnosis and treatment period, patients interact with multiple healthcare providers. In order to facilitate these communications, researchers have developed interventions primarily for providers, and, more recently, for patients. The aim of this paper is to conduct a critical examination of a sample of the empirical literature regarding current knowledge about the types of interventions that have been designed to facilitate cancer patients' communication with their healthcare providers. Overall, the empirical literature suggests that some types of patient-based interventions (e.g. prompt sheets, audiotapes, coaching sessions) may be beneficial in specific areas (e.g. increasing the number of questions asked, increased patient satisfaction). However, there are few consistent findings and the outcome measures that have been examined have varied substantially across studies. More controlled studies using carefully chosen outcome variables are needed. Increasing patients' communication skills so that their goals are met has the potential to positively affect the communication process.

Communication↗

PubMed2005

Patient-professional communication research in cancer: an integrative review of research methods in the context of a conceptual framework.

This paper uses the conceptual framework of Feldman-Stewart et al. to organize and review the types of research methodologies used to investigate various aspects of patient-health care professional communication in the context of cancer. Research methods employed are classified as either non-experimental or experimental. Non-experimental designs include naturalistic observational studies (e.g. participant observation, audio- or videotaping of interactions) and retrospective introspective descriptions (e.g. self-report questionnaires, qualitative interview methods). Experimental designs often involve interventions aimed at improving communication, such as physician or patient training, and the use of technology to enhance communication (e.g. audiotapes, computers). Using the conceptualization of the communication framework description, we argue that the outcome measures used in these studies address either primary goals, enabling goals, or secondary communication outcomes. Outcomes that are related to primary goals of the communication exchange include assessing the level of understanding of information conveyed, aspects of decision making, planning around treatments, or general provision of care. Outcomes related to enabling goals focus on elements that affect the ability to achieve primary goals. Outcomes secondary to the communication do not relate directly to what the communication is attempting to achieve. We conclude by identifying priority areas for further research, such as identifying the goals of both participants, understanding how particular aspects of the communication process affect their ability to achieve their goals, and examining the external environment in which communication takes place.

Communication↗

PubMed2005

A population-based study of the waiting times for prostatectomy in Ontario.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the high incidence of prostate cancer in Canada, there is currently limited information describing how these patients are being managed. The aim of this study was to review the surgical waiting times for radical prostatectomy in Ontario, utilizing existing population-based cancer databases, and to describe factors associated with prolonged waiting times. METHODS: This is a retrospective, population-based, observational study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Ontario between 1980 and 2000. The sources of data include the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to hospital discharge data, as well as census data from Statistics Canada. Study variables include age, county of residence, teaching hospital status, hospital surgical volume, area-level median household income and cause-specific survival. Waiting times were compared across study variables using univariate and graphical methods. Survival was compared across geographic regions with differing average wait times. RESULTS: We identified 9524 men treated with radical prostatectomy in Ontario over the study period and found the percentage of all patients with the disease who were treated surgically increasing from 3% to 20% over the last 2 decades. The overall time to prostatectomy has almost doubled with a median waiting time of 55 days in earlier eras to 91 days in 1996-2000. A few counties had significantly different wait times, whereas age and socio-economic factors were not associated with wait times across most eras. In the most recent eras, acute care hospitals and hospitals with higher surgical volumes had significantly higher waiting times (up to 20 days longer in 1996-2000, p<0.0001). Patients living in regions with the shortest wait times had statistically significant worse survival (p=0.02), implying that triaging has a greater impact than the potential effect of prolonged waits. CONCLUSIONS: The observed increases in waiting times for radical prostatectomy from this study are similar to the known increases in waiting times for radiotherapy. This increased time to treatment is an illustration of the stress on the health care system in Ontario.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids.

Decision aids are tools intended to help patients with decisions about their health-care. We have developed three decision aids to help patients with treatment decisions for: locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), advanced non-small cell lung cancer (A-NSCLC), and early-stage prostate cancer (ES-PC). In developing the aids, we carried out studies to provide them with an empirical basis, and to evaluate their potential for impact. In this paper we report results that challenge common assumptions and typical practice that currently occurs in the development of decision aids. The challenges relate to: how the content of the aid is defined, how the information is presented, how to incorporate decision aids into the dynamic, complex process of making such decisions, and how to evaluate the aids. We conclude that critical appraisal of issues related to the design and implementation of decision aids is required.

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung↗

PubMed2004

Patient-focussed decision-making in early-stage prostate cancer: insights from a cognitively based decision aid.

PURPOSE: To study the cognitive processes of early-stage prostate cancer patients as they determined which treatment they preferred, using our cognitively based decision aid. METHOD: The aid was a one-to-one interview that included the structured presentation of information, listing exercises in which the patient identified attributes important to his decision, and trade-off exercises to help him weigh and integrate those attributes together. At various points of the interview, patients identified the attributes they felt were important to their decision, rated their treatment options and completed standardized assessments relating to their decision. In addition, patients participated in a follow-up interview at the time they made their actual treatment decision and again 3 months later. RESULTS: Sixty of 70 (86%) of the invited patients participated in the study. Participating patients identified a median of four important attributes (range 1-10); 36 different attributes were identified at some point in the interview by the group. During the interview, 78% of patients changed which attributes they considered important, and 72% changed their treatment ratings. Stability of treatment choice after the interview and lack of regret after the decision were each positively associated with increasing differentiation between treatment options over time. CONCLUSIONS: The decision process appears to be dynamic for the patients with great variability across patients in what is important to the decision. Increasing stability of choice and lack of regret appear to be related positively to increasing difference over time in how attractive the preferred option is over its closest competitor, rather than to the size of the difference at any one point in time.

Canada↗

PubMed2003

Evaluation of a question-and-answer booklet on early-stage prostate-cancer.

A question-and-answer booklet about early-stage prostate-cancer was created for patients and their family members. Two sequential studies were conducted to determine if the single source of information would be useful to both patients and their families. The first study used 1:1 interviews with 11 readers (6 patients and 5 family members) to identify features of the booklet that may be problematic. In all, six features were identified as either irrelevant or problematic in their design. The second study was a survey of 54 patients (79% response rate) and 33 family members (49% response rate); the study was designed to obtain an overall evaluation of the booklet, to clarify the proportion of readers for whom the features identified in the first study were problematic, to provide insight into how and why readers were reading the booklet, and to determine if patients and family differed on any of the outcomes. Results showed that 85% of readers liked the booklet; most (81.6%) read it from beginning to end. Most readers in both groups wanted the information to help them understand (85.2% patients; 87.9% family); more patients than family wanted it for treatment decision making (44.4% patients; 27.3% family) and for planning (35.2% patients; 9.1% family); more family (42.4%) than patients (20.4%) wanted the information to help them provide support. We conclude that even though patients and family differ in why they want information, the booklet appears to be considered useful by both groups.

Humans↗

PubMed2002

Sleep disturbance in cancer patients.

Sleep difficulty is a prominent concern of cancer patients, yet there has been no large study of the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance in cancer patients. This cross-sectional survey study examined: (a) the prevalence of reported sleep problems in patients attending six clinics at a regional cancer centre; (b) sleep problem prevalence in relation to cancer treatment; and (c) the nature of reported insomnia (type, duration, and associated factors). For three months, all patients attending clinics for breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecologic, lung, and non-melanoma skin cancers were offered a brief sleep questionnaire. Response rate was 87%; the final sample size was 982. Mean age of respondents was 64.9 years (SD 12.5). The most prevalent problems were excessive fatigue (44% of patients), leg restlessness (41%). insomnia (31%), and excessive sleepiness (28%). Chi square tests showed significant variation among clinics in the prevalence of most sleep problems. The lung clinic had the highest or second-highest prevalence of problems. The breast clinic had a high prevalence of insomnia and fatigue. Recent cancer treatment was associated with excessive fatigue and hypersomnolence. Insomnia commonly involved multiple awakenings (76% of cases) and duration > or = 6 months (75% of cases). In 48% of cases, insomnia onset was reported to occur around the time of cancer diagnosis (falling within the period 6 months pre-diagnosis to 18 months post-diagnosis). The most frequently identified contributors to insomnia were thoughts, concerns, and pain/discomfort. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, variables associated with increased odds of insomnia were fatigue, age (inverse relationship), leg restlessness, sedative/hypnotic use, low or variable mood, dreams, concerns, and recent cancer surgery. This study provides new information about sleep-related phenomena in cancer patients, information which will be useful in planning supportive care services for cancer patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer: a decade of progress.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic overview of the literature investigating patient and tumor factors that are predictive of survival for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to analyze patterns in the design of these studies in order to highlight problematic aspects of their design and to advocate for appropriate directions of future studies. DESIGN: A systematic search of the MEDLINE database and a synthesis of the identified literature. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The database search (January 1990 to July 2001) was carried out combining the MeSH terms prognosis and carcinoma, nonsmall cell lung. Eight hundred eighty-seven articles met the search criteria. These studies identified 169 prognostic factors relating either to the tumor or the host. One hundred seventy-six studies reported multivariate analyses. Concerning 153 studies reporting a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in patients with early-stage NSCLC, the median number of patients enrolled per study was 120 (range, 31 to 1,281 patients). The median number of factors reported to be significant in univariate analyses was 4 (range, 2 to 14 factors). The median number of factors reported to be significant in multivariate analyses per study was 2 (range, 0 to 6 factors). The median number of studies examining each prognostic factor was 1 (range, 1 to 105 studies). Only 6% of studies addressed clinical outcomes other than patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: While the breadth of prognostic factors studied in the literature is extensive, the scope of factors evaluated in individual studies is inappropriately narrow. Individual studies are typically statistically underpowered and are remarkably heterogeneous with regard to their conclusions. Larger studies with clinically relevant modeling are required to address the usefulness of newly available prognostic factors in defining the management of patients with NSCLC.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗