Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026
Real-world implementation of a pre-consultation patient educational tool for intermediate risk prostate cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Borras-Osorio Mariana, Kowalchuk Roman O, Preston Heather R, Rajkumar Anne W, Uptmor Andrea M, Davis Brian J, Choo C Richard, Stish Brad J, Phillips Ryan M, Malouff Timothy D, Traughber Bryan J, Wilson Jessica, Lozko Yuliia, Mastroleo Federico, Namazi Mohammad-Javad, Routman David M, Ebner Daniel K, Waddle Mark R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prostate Cancer (PCa) decision-making requires patients to understand their diagnosis and therapeutic options, balancing care nuances and risk-to-benefit profiles. The complexity of information and a wide range of treatments often exceed what can be covered in consultation. Our team developed a PCa Educational Tool to enhance patient understanding and support decision-making process.
METHODS: The PCa Educational Tool was designed using plain language principles and evidence-based content. The tool was distributed automatically to newly diagnosed intermediate-risk PCa patients. A post-use questionnaire assessed usability, satisfaction, and perceived educational value. Qualitative feedback was categorized by sentiment and themes. Treatment selection was explored between sequential cohorts before and after implementation.
RESULTS: A total of 395 patients received the tool, and 79.7% completed the questionnaire. Among respondents, 88.1% felt more prepared for discussion with their care team, and 74.8% indicated improved understanding of their diagnosis. Satisfaction rates were high, with 93.9% of respondents recommending the tool to other patients. Qualitative analysis revealed positive feedback on the tool's comprehensiveness and format, while highlighting other areas for improvement. Exploratory comparison of treatment selection showed statistically significant differences between the sequential cohorts, with a slight increase selection of brachytherapy and focal therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: PCa Educational Tool improved patient understanding and preparedness for consultation with the care team. In exploratory analysis, its use is correlated with a statistically significant shift in treatment choices in sequential cohorts (p = 0.048). The process was automated and proved to seamlessly integrate into our clinical workflow. Future steps include tool refinement based on patient feedback.
METHODS: The PCa Educational Tool was designed using plain language principles and evidence-based content. The tool was distributed automatically to newly diagnosed intermediate-risk PCa patients. A post-use questionnaire assessed usability, satisfaction, and perceived educational value. Qualitative feedback was categorized by sentiment and themes. Treatment selection was explored between sequential cohorts before and after implementation.
RESULTS: A total of 395 patients received the tool, and 79.7% completed the questionnaire. Among respondents, 88.1% felt more prepared for discussion with their care team, and 74.8% indicated improved understanding of their diagnosis. Satisfaction rates were high, with 93.9% of respondents recommending the tool to other patients. Qualitative analysis revealed positive feedback on the tool's comprehensiveness and format, while highlighting other areas for improvement. Exploratory comparison of treatment selection showed statistically significant differences between the sequential cohorts, with a slight increase selection of brachytherapy and focal therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: PCa Educational Tool improved patient understanding and preparedness for consultation with the care team. In exploratory analysis, its use is correlated with a statistically significant shift in treatment choices in sequential cohorts (p = 0.048). The process was automated and proved to seamlessly integrate into our clinical workflow. Future steps include tool refinement based on patient feedback.