Evaluation of a Web-based Decision Aid Tool for Larynx Cancer (T3/T4) Patients.

Laryngeal cancer is the second most common head and neck cancer. Each year about 700 people are diagnosed with larynxcarcinoma in the Netherlands (Van Dijk et.al. 2013).

For patients with laryngeal cancer, various treatment options are available, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and endoscopic (laser) treatment. Each option has its own benefits and side effects. The optimal treatment for patients having stage 3 or 4 laryngeal cancer is not unambiguously proven. Different treatment options cause different side effects that may impact the patients' health-related quality of life. The treatment of choice depends on preferences and personal values. In these preference-sensitive choices it is important to involve the patient in the decision-making process. In this process both the practitioner and the patient exchange information and collaborate in the decision, the physician knows more technical information about the disease, the treatment options and the side effects, the patient knows how the treatment options correspond with his lifestyle, values and preferences (Frosch DL and Kaplan RM, 1999; O'Connor AM, et.al. 2003; O'Connor AM, et.al., 2004).

Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) are tools that can help patients to get involved in decision making by clarifying treatment options, outcomes, and personal values. In the development process of a decision aid it is mandatory to follow a systematic and iterative approach to: (a) understand patient's decisional needs; (b) create prototypical tools; (c) evaluate these prototypes with patients and clinicians, and (d) use these results to improve the tool.

Considering the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (http://ipdas.ohri.ca/), we designed an initial prototype, called Treatmentchoice (http://www.treatmentchoice.info). These standards recommend assessing patients and doctors views in decisional needs, use this information to develop an alpha version of the PDA and validate it again with patients and doctors to create a beta version.

The aim of this project is user-testing the initial prototype of the Treatmentchoice. This will allow us to follow a systematically development process and to gain knowledge on the validity of our approach. The project covers 4 chronological activities:

ACTIVITY 1: ASSES DECISIONAL NEEDS: Elicit patients and clinicians views on patient's information, expectations, and needs on decision support. Conclusions and recommendations for improvement of Treatmentchoice will be derived and the current prototype will be improved creating an alpha prototype.

ACTIVITY 2: ALPHA-TESTING: Testing patients' and clinicians comprehensibility, acceptability and usability on the alpha-version. A mixed method will be used; structured interviews combined with think aloud (Ahmed, 2009) and questionnaires (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) - Venkatesh et al.2012) with both patients and clinicians (head and neck surgeon,medical oncologists an radiation oncologists). Conclusions and recommendations will be documented. Considering this assessment, the prototype will be improved. Alpha testing will be repeated with this improved prototype using an iterative process, until the tool is comprehensible, acceptable and usable for both patients and physicians. A second assessment will be performed with a beta prototype.

ACTIVITY 3: BETA-TESTING: Establish the impact of Treatmentchoice on knowledge, decisional conflict and the shared decision making process, as well as the extent clinicians involve patients in decision making. The study composes the evaluation of the impact of the Treatmentchoice. A variety of questionnaires will be used to assess different outcome measures:

• Age and educational level, home situation with regard to internet connection.
• Knowledge test will be assessed using 20 statements, which can be rated as "true", "not true" or "do not know" (Savelberg, 2015).
• Decisional conflict will be assessed using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). This 16-item scale has five subscales: feeling informed, decisional uncertainty, clear values, support, and quality of decisions. Each of these items is scored on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) (DCS, O'Connor AM, 2010).
• Patient's desire to participate in medical decisions will be assessed using a 5-item Control Preference Scale (Degner 1997).
• The Shared Decision Making (SDM) process will be assessed by the perceptions of patients, using the SDM-Q9 instrument for patients. The instrument provides 9 statements, which can be rated on a six-point scale from 0 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). (SDM-Q9, Rodenburg, 2015 Dutch version).
• The process of SDM will also be assessed by the perceptions of the physician (the oncologist or the radiotherapist if the decision is made together with the radiotherapist), using the SDM-Q9 instrument for professionals. The instrument provides 9 statements, also rated on a six-point scale (SDM-Q9,Rodenburg,2015/Dutch version).

The patients will be asked to fill in the questionnaires at two time points, directly after the decision making process and 3 months after the decision making process. Their physician will be asked to fill in the questionnaire at 1 time point, directly after the decision making process.

ACTIVITY 4: IMPLEMENTATION: Develop an implementation and dissemination plan for shared decision making in prostate cancer. Questionnaires and qualitative interviews will be performed to evaluate barriers and facilitators for implementation in clinical practice, to develop strategies for the implementation of the decision aid and facilitate optimal shared decision making, tailored to the barriers and needs of the end-users. Based on the results, an implementation plan will be written