An Online Decision Aid for Patients With Metastatic Melanoma

• Published in: Deutsches Ärzteblatt international Vol. 121; no. 12; p. 385
• Main Authors: Grabbe, Pia, Borchers, Milena S, Gschwendtner, Kathrin M, Strobel, Sophia, Wild, Beate, Kirchner, Marietta, Kälber, Katharina, Rendon, Adriana, Steininger, Julian, Meier, Friedegund, Hassel, Jessica C, Bieber, Christiane
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany 14-06-2024
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Decision Support Techniques; Female; Germany; Humans; Male; Melanoma - secondary; Melanoma - therapy; Middle Aged; Patient Education as Topic - methods; Patient Participation - methods; Patient Participation - statistics & numerical data; Patient Satisfaction - statistics & numerical data; Prospective Studies; Skin Neoplasms - therapy; Germany
• ISSN: 1866-0452; 1866-0452
• DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0053

Treatment decisions in metastatic melanoma (MM) are highly dependent on patient preferences and require the patients' involvement. The complexity of treatment options with their individual advantages and disadvantages is often overwhelming. We therefore developed an online patient decision aid (PtDA) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM).
To evaluate the PtDA we conducted a two-armed, twocenter, prospective, open randomized controlled trial with MM patients who were facing a decision about first-line treatment. The patients were allotted randomly in a 1:1 ratio to an intervention group (IG) with access to the PtDA before discussion with a physician or to a control group (CG) without access to the PtDA. The primary endpoint was knowledge about the options for first-line treatment (multiple-choice test, 10 items, range 0-40 points). The secondary endpoints were the SDM (third-party ratings of audio recordings of the treatment discussions) and satisfaction with the decision at the follow-up visit.
Of the 128 randomized patients, 120 completed the baseline questionnaire and were analyzed (59% male, median age 66 years). The primary endpoint, i.e., the mean difference in knowledge after discussion with a physician, differed significantly between the IG and the CG (-3.22, 95% CI [-6.32; -0.12], p = 0.042). No differences were found for the secondary endpoints, SDM and satisfaction with the decision. The patients in the IG rated the PtDA as very useful.
The PtDA improved the knowledge of patients with MM about the options for treatment. Both groups were highly satisfied with their treatment decisions. However, additional physician training seems necessary to promote SDM.