BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making (TDM) for patients with localized (LPC) or locally advanced (LAPC) prostate cancer is complex, and post-treatment decision regret (DR) is common. The factors driving TDM or predicting DR remain understudied.
OBJECTIVE: Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to explore the factors associated with TDM and DR.
METHODS: Three online databases, select congress proceedings, and gray literature were searched (September 2022). Publications on TDM and DR in LPC/LAPC were prioritized based on the following: 2012 onward, ≥100 patients, journal article, and quantitative data. The Preferred Reporting Items Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Influential factors were those with p < 0.05; for TDM, factors described as \"a decision driver\", \"associated\", \"influential\", or \"significant\" were also included. The key factors were determined by number of studies, consistency of evidence, and study quality.
RESULTS: Seventy-five publications (68 studies) reported TDM. Patient participation in TDM was reported in 34 publications; overall, patients preferred an active/shared role. Of 39 influential TDM factors, age, ethnicity, external factors (physician recommendation most common), and treatment characteristics/toxicity were key. Forty-nine publications reported DR. The proportion of patients experiencing DR varied by treatment type: 7-43% (active surveillance), 12-57% (radical prostatectomy), 1-49% (radiotherapy), 28-49% (androgen-deprivation therapy), and 21-47% (combination therapy). Of 42 significant DR factors, treatment toxicity (sexual/urinary/bowel dysfunction), patient role in TDM, and treatment type were key.
CONCLUSIONS: The key factors impacting TDM were physician recommendation, age, ethnicity, and treatment characteristics. Treatment toxicity and TDM approach were the key factors influencing DR. To help patients navigate factors influencing TDM and to limit DR, a shared, consensual TDM approach between patients, caregivers, and physicians is needed.
RESULTS: We looked at factors influencing treatment decision-making (TDM) and decision regret (DR) in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. The key factors influencing TDM were doctor\'s recommendation, patient age/ethnicity, and treatment side effects. A shared, consensual TDM approach between patients and doctors was found to limit DR.

BACKGROUND: Treatment choice for localised prostate cancer remains a significant challenge for patients and clinicians, with uncertainty over decisions potentially leading to conflict and regret. There is a need to further understand the prevalence and prognostic factors of decision regret to improve patient quality of life.
OBJECTIVE: To generate the best estimates for the prevalence of significant decision regret localised prostate cancer patients, and to investigate prognostic patient, oncological, and treatment factors associated with regret.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases including studies evaluating the prevalence or patient, treatment, or oncological prognostic factors in localised prostate cancer patients. A pooled prevalence of significant regret was calculated with the formal prognostic factor evaluation conducted per factor identified.
RESULTS: Significant decision regret was present in a pooled 20% (95% confidence interval 16-23) of patients across 14 studies and 17883 patients. This was lower in active surveillance (13%), with little difference between those who underwent radiotherapy (19%) and those who underwent prostatectomy (18%). Evaluation of individual prognostic factors demonstrated higher regret in those with poorer post-treatment bowel, sexual, and urinary function; decreased involvement in the decision-making process; and Black ethnicity. However, evidence remains conflicting, with low or moderate certainty of findings.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of men experience decision regret after a localised prostate cancer diagnosis. Monitoring those with increased functional symptoms and improving patient involvement in the decision-making process through education and decision aids may reduce regret.
RESULTS: We looked at how common regret in treatment decisions is after treatment for early-stage prostate cancer and factors linked with this. We found that one in five regret their decision, with those who had experienced side effects or were less involved in the decision-making process more likely to have regret. By addressing these, clinicians could reduce regret and improve quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Risk-reducing hysterectomy (RRH) is the gold-standard prevention for endometrial cancer (EC). Knowledge of the impact on quality-of-life (QoL) is crucial for decision-making. This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence.
METHODS: We searched major databases until July 2022 (CRD42022347631). Given the paucity of data on RRH, we also included hysterectomy as treatment for benign disease. We used validated quality-assessment tools, and performed qualitative synthesis of QoL outcomes.
RESULTS: Four studies (64 patients) reported on RRH, 25 studies (1268 patients) on hysterectomy as treatment for uterine bleeding. There was moderate risk-of-bias in many studies. Following RRH, three qualitative studies found substantially lowered cancer-worry, with no decision-regret. Oophorectomy (for ovarian cancer prevention) severely impaired menopause-specific QoL and sexual-function, particularly without hormone-replacement. Quantitative studies supported these results, finding low distress and generally high satisfaction. Hysterectomy as treatment of bleeding improved QoL, resulted in high satisfaction, and no change or improvements in sexual and urinary function, although small numbers reported worsening.
CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence on QoL after RRH. Whilst there are benefits, most adverse consequences arise from oophorectomy. Benign hysterectomy allows for some limited comparison; however, more research is needed for outcomes in the population of women at increased EC-risk.

Informal caregivers often serve as decision makers for dependent or vulnerable individuals facing health care decisions. Decision regret is one of the most prevalent outcomes reported by informal caregivers who have made such decisions.
To examine levels of decision regret and its predictors among informal caregivers who have made health-related decisions for a loved one.
We performed a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to November 2018. Participants were informal caregivers, and the outcome was decision regret as measured using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS).
Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We performed a narrative synthesis and presented predictors of decision regret using a conceptual framework, dividing the predictors into decision antecedents, decision-making process, and decision outcomes.
We included 16 of 3003 studies identified. Most studies (n = 13) reported a mean DRS score ranging from 7.0 to 32.3 out of 100 (median = 14.3). The methodological quality of studies was acceptable. We organized predictors and their estimated effects (β) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) as follows: decision antecedents (e.g., caregivers\' desire to avoid the decision, OR 2.07, 95% CI [1.04-4.12], P = 0.04), decision-making process (e.g., caregivers\' perception of effective decision making, β = 0.49 [0.05, 0.93], P < 0.01), and decision outcomes (e.g., incontinence, OR = 4.4 [1.1, 18.1], P < 0.001).
This review shows that informal caregivers\' level of decision regret is generally low but is high for some decisions. We also identified predictors of regret during different stages of the decision-making process. These findings may guide future research on improving caregivers\' experiences.

To perform a systematic review of decision regret studies in cancer patients to determine if regret is longitudinally stable, and whether these study structures account for late-emerging treatment effects.
Online databases including the George Mason Libraries, Global Health, Nursing and Allied Health, and PubMed were searched to identify decision regret studies with longitudinal components in patients with cancer.
A total of 845 unique citations were identified; 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Data was also collected on the time horizon for 90 studies; 47 % of studies evaluated regret at time points of one year or less, although this has increased significantly in prostate cancer citations since 2010. Regret was infrequent, affecting less than 20 % of patients, and often stable. Effect sizes in studies where decision regret changed over time were small to negligible.
Longitudinal effects can influence the expression of decision regret, yet many studies are not designed to collect long-term data; prostate cancer studies may be particularly disadvantaged. The degree of this influence in current studies is small, though this outcome must be interpreted with caution.
Providers should be aware of the risk of late-emerging regret and counsel patients appropriately.

To enhance the value of care, interventions should aim at improving endpoints that matter to patients. The preferences of head and neck cancer patients regarding treatment outcomes are therefore a major topic for patient-centered research.
A systematic review (PROSPERO number CRD42016035692) was conducted by searching electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL) for articles evaluating patient or surrogate preferences in head and neck cancer. A qualitative review was performed but no quantitative synthesis.
Of 817 references retrieved, 20full-text articles were eventually included in the qualitative analysis Disease sites included mixed head and neck tumor sites, n=9; larynx, n=6; oropharynx/oral cavity, n=5. Overall, patients prioritized survival over functional endpoints. However, preferences and utility scores varied greatly between patients and healthy subjects, and differences were less pronounced with spouses or healthcare providers. Findings from studies of laryngeal preservation are consistent and conclude that a subset of patients would be willing to compromise a certain amount of survival to avoid laryngectomy. On the other hand, studies of patients with oropharyngeal cancer are too heterogeneous to draw conclusions about acceptable functional trade-offs or priorities, and should be the focus of future research.
Future research surrounding head and neck cancer patients will most likely be clinically applicable if the questions are focused on well-defined patient groups and treatment options. Gathering reliable and valid quality-of-life data, designing patient preference studies that use reliable and generalizable methods, and using the results to develop decision aids for shared decision-making strategies are recommended going forward.

People often face difficult decisions about their health and may later regret the choice that they made. However, little is known about the extent of decision regret in health care or its predictors. We systematically reviewed evidence about the extent of decision regret and its risk factors among individuals making health decisions.
The data sources were Medline, Embase, and reverse citation searches in Google Scholar and Web of Science. Studies using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) to measure decision regret among individuals making nonhypothetical health decisions were included. There were no restrictions on study design, setting, or language. We extracted characteristics of included studies, measures of central tendency for DRS scores (0 = no regret, 100 = high regret), and all risk factors from published analyses. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis was performed owing to the heterogeneity of studies.
The initial search yielded 372 unique titles, and 59 studies were included. The overall mean DRS score across studies was 16.5, and the median of the mean scores was 14.3 (standard deviation range = 2.2-34.5) (n = 44 studies). The risk factors most frequently reported to be associated with decision regret in multivariate analyses included higher decisional conflict, lower satisfaction with the decision, adverse physical health outcomes, and greater anxiety levels.
The extent of decision regret as assessed with the DRS in nonhypothetical health decisions was often low but reached high levels for some decisions. Several risk factors related to the decision-making process significantly predicted decision regret. Additional research into the psychometrics of the DRS and the relevance of scores for clinicians and patients would increase the validity of decision regret as a patient-reported outcome.