Measuring decisional control preferences in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA, USA.
Journal of Psychosocial Oncology (Impact Factor: 1.04). 11/2011; 29(6):606-18. DOI: 10.1080/07347332.2011.615383
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Control Preferences Scale is widely used in decision research to measure patient preferences for participation in treatment decision making with health care providers. Following anecdotal reports of confusion with the scale the authors conducted an exploratory interview study to examine perceptions of the meaning and applicability of the Control Preferences Scale for men with localized prostate cancer seeking treatment in a multidisciplinary urology clinic. The preliminary data suggest potential validity challenges when the Control Preferences Scale is used in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer care setting, including the clinical context of localized prostate cancer and the meaning of shared decision making.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Usability evaluation is now widely recognized as critical to the success of interactive health care applications. However, the broad range of usability inspection and testing methods available may make it difficult to decide on a usability assessment plan. To guide novices in the human-computer interaction field, we provide an overview of the methodological and empirical research available on the three usability inspection and testing methods most often used. We describe two 'expert-based' and one 'user-based' usability method: (1) the heuristic evaluation, (2) the cognitive walkthrough, and (3) the think aloud. All three usability evaluation methods are applied in laboratory settings. Heuristic evaluation is a relatively efficient usability evaluation method with a high benefit-cost ratio, but requires high skills and usability experience of the evaluators to produce reliable results. The cognitive walkthrough is a more structured approach than the heuristic evaluation with a stronger focus on the learnability of a computer application. Major drawbacks of the cognitive walkthrough are the required level of detail of task and user background descriptions for an adequate application of the latest version of the technique. The think aloud is a very direct method to gain deep insight in the problems end users encounter in interaction with a system but data analyses is extensive and requires a high level of expertise both in the cognitive ergonomics and in computer system application domain. Each of the three usability evaluation methods has shown its usefulness, has its own advantages and disadvantages; no single method has revealed any significant results indicating that it is singularly effective in all circumstances. A combination of different techniques that compliment one another should preferably be used as their collective application will be more powerful than applied in isolation. Innovative mobile and automated solutions to support end-user testing have emerged making combined approaches of laboratory, field and remote usability evaluations of new health care applications more feasible.
    International Journal of Medical Informatics 12/2008; 78(5):340-53. · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors describe the use of cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a new supportive and palliative care screening measure to identify the specialist supportive and palliative care needs of patients with an advanced illness. A draft screening measure was developed by literature reviewing and consultation with patients, carers and health and social care professionals. Using this draft, cognitive interviews were conducted with six professionals and one consumer using the 'thinking aloud technique' to assess the perception, usefulness and interpretation of each question on the measure. The focus of these interviews was to identify unclear words or phrases and to explore how the questions worked in eliciting a response. A content analysis of the interviews was used to identify problems with the text, phrasing and format of the questions and accompanying responses. The authors found the technique to be useful in identifying jargon or confusing questions. A number of perspectives were taken into account by speaking to health and social care professionals in primary care and secondary care who would be offering the measure to future patients. The most sensitive questions were highlighted, and this enabled the researchers to consider how these should be asked and responded to in subsequent versions of the measure. The measure was re-drafted in light of these comments.
    Supportive Care in Cancer 12/2008; 17(6):665-73. · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is unclear whether the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) provides a suitable framework for eliciting women's preferences for involvement in decision-making about diagnostic tests. The aims of this study were to assess the appropriateness of the role label approach for eliciting preferences for decision-making about diagnostic tests and to elicit women's preferences for, and views about, decision-making for diagnostic tests. In-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 37 women who had previously participated in a population-based telephone survey. Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that qualitative questions may be a more sensitive methodology for eliciting preferences than the role label approach as exemplified by the CPS. The analysis identified a number of issues associated with decision-making for diagnostic tests, including defining what a decision is, the rationale for the preference and factors that influence the preferred role such as the perceived seriousness of the test and potential outcomes. The role label approach used to elicit preferences for involvement in decision-making may be too simplistic. It may not fully capture the complexity of women's thoughts about test decision-making, including how they define a decision and what factors affect their preference.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 06/2004; 58(9):1699-707. · 2.56 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Oct 21, 2014