BACKGROUND: Many people struggle with the choice in a series of processes, from prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis to treatment. We investigated the degree of regret after the prostate biopsy (PBx) and relevant factors in patients recommended for biopsy for suspected PCa.
METHODS: From 06/2020 to 05/2022, 198 people who performed PBx at three institutions were enrolled and analyzed through a questionnaire before and after biopsy. Before the biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the sociodemographic information, anxiety scale, and health literacy, and after PBx, another questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the decision regret scale. For patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted when additional tests were performed at PCa staging work-up.
RESULTS: 190 patients answered the questionnaire before and after PBx. The mean age was 66.2 ± 7.8 years. Overall, 5.5% of men regretted biopsy, but there was no significant difference between groups according to the PCa presence. Multivariate analysis, to identify predictors for regret, revealed that the case when physicians did not properly explain what the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was like and what PSA elevation means (OR 20.57, [95% CI 2.45-172.70], p = 0.005), low media literacy (OR 10.01, [95% CI 1.09-92.29], p = 0.042), and when nobody to rely on (OR 8.49, [95% CI 1.66-43.34], p = 0.010) were significantly related.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall regret related to PBx was low. Decision regret was more significantly related to media literacy rather than to educational level. For patients with relatively low media literacy and fewer people to rely on in case of serious diseases, more careful attention and counseling on PBx, including a well-informed explanation on PSA test, is helpful.

UNASSIGNED: Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer are faced with the decision of whether to undergo radical treatment. Decision-making aids, such as Predict Prostate, can empower both clinicians and patients to make treatment decisions with personalised information, but their impact on multi-disciplinary team (MDT) decision-making and uptake of radical treatment remains unknown.
UNASSIGNED: The objective of this study is to assess the utilisation and utility of Predict Prostate in informing treatment decisions for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Cambridge University Hospitals (CUH) of patients referred to the prostate cancer specialist multi-disciplinary team (pcSMDT) and robotic prostatectomy clinic (ROPD) between September 2019 and August 2021 for consideration of radical prostatectomy (RARP). Data on patient characteristics, use of PredictProstate and management decisions were collected from the Epic electronic medical record (EMR) of 839 patients, of whom 386 had intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
UNASSIGNED: The use of Predict Prostate at the pcSMDT increased in the second half of the study period (34.5% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.001). The use of Predict Prostate was associated with an increased likelihood of attending ROPD for men with CPG2 prostate cancer (OR = 2.155, 95% CI = 1.158-4.013, p = 0.015) but a reduced likelihood of proceeding with RARP for men with CPG2 (OR = 0.397, 95% CI = 0.209-0.753, p = 0.005) and CPG3 (OR = 0.305, 95% CI = 0.108-0.861, p = 0.025) prostate cancer.
UNASSIGNED: Our study showed that the use of Predict Prostate for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer is associated with increased attendance at specialist surgical clinic and a reduced chance of undergoing radical prostate surgery.

Background: It is important to understand cancer survivors\' perceptions about their treatment decisions and quality of life. Methods: We performed a prospective observational cohort study of Canadian patients with small (<2 cm) low-risk papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) who were offered the choice of active surveillance (AS) or surgery (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03271892). Participants completed a questionnaire one year after their treatment decision. The primary intention-to-treat analysis compared the mean decision regret scale total score between patients who chose AS or surgery. A secondary analysis examined one-year decision regret score according to treatment status. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, mood, fear of disease progression, and body image perception. We adjusted for age, sex, and follow-up duration in linear regression analyses. Results: The overall questionnaire response rate was 95.5% (191/200). The initial treatment choices of respondents were AS 79.1% (151/191) and surgery 20.9% (40/191). The mean age was 53 years (standard deviation [SD] 15 years) and 77% (147/191) were females. In the AS group, 7.3% (11/151) of patients crossed over to definitive treatment (two for disease progression) before the time of questionnaire completion. The mean level of decision regret did not differ significantly between patients who chose AS (mean 22.4, SD 13.9) or surgery (mean 20.9, SD 12.2) in crude (p = 0.730) or adjusted (p = 0.29) analyses. However, the adjusted level of decision regret was significantly higher in patients who initially chose AS and crossed over to surgery (beta coefficient 10.1 [confidence interval; CI 1.3-18.9], p = 0.02), compared with those remaining under AS. In secondary adjusted analyses, respondents who chose surgery reported that symptoms related to their cancer or its treatment interfered with life to a greater extent than those who chose AS (p = 0.02), but there were no significant group differences in the levels of depression, anxiety, fear of disease progression, or overall body image perception. Conclusions: In this study of patients with small, low-risk PTC, the mean level of decision regret pertaining to the initial disease management choice was relatively low after one year and it did not differ significantly for respondents who chose AS or surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) determine differences in depression, anxiety, body image, quality-of-life (QOL), and decision regret scale (DRS) scores in transgender individuals undergoing fertility preservation (FP) compared to those who decline and (2) determine if DRS score following FP varies between transgender individuals and cisgender women.
METHODS: Sixteen transgender birth-assigned (BA) females and 13 BA males, undergoing FP consultation at an academic center between January 2016 and November 2019, were compared to each other and cisgender cohorts with pre-existing data: 201 women undergoing elective oocyte cryopreservation (EOC) between 2012 and 2016 and 44 women with cancer undergoing FP between 1993 and 2007. Outcomes included demographics; validated scales for depression, anxiety, body image, QOL (see below) in the trans cohort; DRS score in all three cohorts.
RESULTS: Of 29 transgender individuals participating, 10 BA females (62%) and 12 BA males (92%) underwent FP. Beck Depression Inventory II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Body Image Scale for Transsexuals, Satisfaction with Life Scale, Short Form Health Survey-36, and DRS scores were not significantly different between trans individuals who underwent FP and those who declined. On univariate modeling, regret was significantly lower in transpeople undergoing FP compared to those who did not (OR 0.118, p = 0.03). BA female and BA male transpatients undergoing FP reported DRS median scores 5 (mean 9) and 7.5 (mean 15), respectively, both were not significantly different from cisgender women (p = 0.97, p = 0.25) nor from each other (p = 0.43).
CONCLUSIONS: Depression, anxiety, body image, and QOL, in a group of individuals presenting for FP consultation, appear similar between transpeople undergoing FP and not, while regret is significantly lower in those choosing FP. FP is an option for transgender individuals without significant differences in regret compared to cisgender women.

UNASSIGNED: We aimed to gain insight into psychological barriers toward initiation of strong opioid analgesic use in patients with advanced recurrent cancer.
UNASSIGNED: This study included 46 patients who were prescribed with opioid analgesics for advanced recurrent cancer. The primary outcome was psychological barriers assessed using the Japanese version of the Barriers Questionnaire-II (JBQ-II). The secondary outcomes were psychological changes and pain relief one week after the induction of strong opioid analgesics.
UNASSIGNED: The mean age of participants was 63.6 years. Furthermore, 26.1% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≥3. The mean JBQ-II total score was 1.97 (95% confidence interval: 1.75-2.19). At the initiation of opioid therapy, there was no difference in the total scores between the baseline and one week later. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the subscale \"disease progression\" score (mean 2.97 vs. 2.59, difference in means 0.38, standard error 0.16, p = 0.026). Personalized Pain Goal (PPG) was achieved in about half of the participants, and a trend toward a higher score in the subscale \"harmful effects\" (concern about adverse events) was observed in those who did not achieve PPG.
UNASSIGNED: This study showed that patients with advanced recurrent cancer have psychological barriers to opioid induction. The relationship between the presence of psychological barriers before and after induction of opioid analgesics and the speed of pain improvement was determined. The results may provide fundamental information for prospective intervention studies to develop individualized education programs for patients with psychological barriers to opioids.Clinical Trial Registration Number UMIN000042443.

This study investigated sex differences in the relationship between post-vaccination adverse reactions, decision regret, and willingness to pay (WTP) for the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines. This research carried out an online cross-sectional investigation among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Taizhou, China. In total, 1,054 respondents (165 males and 889 females) have received two-dose COVID-19 vaccination. We performed descriptive analysis, chi-square test, and mediation analysis on the exported data. In this study, 67 (40.6%) males and 429 (48.3%) females had WTP for the booster dose. Our study presented that decision regret mediated the effect of adverse reactions after vaccination on WTP for the booster dose in both male and female groups. In males, decision regret played a completely mediating role, while in females, it acted as a partial mediator. Sex differences in the relationship between post-vaccination side effects, decision regret, and WTP for the third dose were demonstrated in a sample of healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Decisions for how to resolve infertility are complex and may lead to regret. We examined whether couples and individuals who sought a consultation from a reproductive specialist for infertility later expressed decisional regret about their family-building choices and whether regret was associated with parental role, family-building paths, or outcomes.
METHODS: This longitudinal mixed methods study included women and their partners who completed a questionnaire prior to their initial consultation with a reproductive specialist and 6 years later. The six-year questionnaire included the Ottawa Decision Regret Scale referencing \"the decisions you made about how to add a child to your family.\" A score of 25+ indicates moderate-to-severe regret. Additional items invited reflections on family-building decisions, treatments, and costs. A systematic content analysis assessed qualitative themes.
RESULTS: Forty-five couples and 34 individuals participated in the six-year questionnaire (76% retention rate), Half (n = 61) of participants expressed no regret, which was similar by role (median 0 for women and supporting partners, F = .08; p = .77). One in 5 women and 1 in 7 partners expressed moderate-to-severe regret. Women who did not pursue any treatment had significantly higher regret (median 15; F = 5.6, p < 0.01) compared to those who pursued IVF (median 0) or other treatments (median 0). Women who did not add a child to their family had significantly higher regret (median 35; F = 10.1, p < 0.001) than those who added a child through treatment (median 0), through fostering/adoption (median 0), or naturally (median 5). Among partners, regret scores were not associated with family-building paths or outcomes. More than one-quarter of participants wished they had spent less money trying to add a child to their family. Qualitative themes included gratitude for parenthood despite the burdensome process of family-building as well as dissatisfaction or regret about the process. Results should be confirmed in other settings to increase generalizability.
CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study provides new insight into the burden of infertility. For women seeking parenthood, any of the multiple paths to parenthood may prevent future decision regret. Greater psychosocial, financial, and decision support is needed to help patients and their partners navigate family-building with minimal regret.
When people experience infertility, there are many decisions that can be challenging, such as whether to seek fertility treatments, to pursue fostering/adoption, and how to manage costs. With each decision, there is an opportunity for regret. The goal of this study was to look at whether people who were experiencing infertility and made an appointment with a doctor who specializes in infertility felt any regret about their decisions 6 years later. We also looked at whether different roles (that is, women seeking pregnancy or their supporting partners), different family-building paths (that is, medical treatments or not), or different outcomes (that is, adding a child to their family or not) were associated with different levels of regret. Results showed that half of the 120 people in the study did not have any regret 6 years after meeting with a specialty doctor. However, some patients did have regret, including 20% of women and 14% of partners who expressed moderate-to-severe regret. Women who did not add a child to their family in the six years during the study reported higher regret compared to women who did add a child to their family. There were no such differences among partners. About 25% of participants wished they had tried more, fewer, or different treatments. More than 25% wished they spent less money to try to add a child to their family. For people who want to add a child to their family, there are multiple ways to become a parent, any of which may be linked to lower decision regret. Decision regret is experienced differently between women seeking to add a child to their family and their partners. Would-be parents need more emotional, financial, and decision making support to help them navigate family-building with minimal regret.

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) are faced with a wide spectrum of therapeutic options at initial diagnosis. Following radical prostatectomy (RP), PC patients may experience regret regarding their initial choice of treatment, especially when oncological and functional outcomes are poor. Impacts of psychosocial factors on decision regret, especially after long-term follow-up, are not well understood. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and determinants of decision regret in long-term PC survivors following RP.
METHODS: 3408 PC survivors (mean age 78.8 years, SD = 6.5) from the multicenter German Familial PC Database returned questionnaires after an average of 16.5 (SD = 3.8) years following RP. The outcome of decision regret concerning the initial choice of RP was assessed with one item from the Decision Regret Scale. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PC-anxiety, PSA-anxiety, as well as anxiety and depressive symptoms were considered for independent association with decision regret via multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: 10.9% (373/3408) of PC survivors reported decision regret. Organ-confined disease at RP (OR 1.39, 95%CI 1.02-1.91), biochemical recurrence (OR 1.34, 1.00-1.80), low HRQoL (OR 1.69,1.28-2.24), depressive symptoms (OR 2.32, 1.52-3.53), and prevalent PSA anxiety (OR 1.88,1.17-3.01) were significantly associated with increased risk of decision regret. Shared decision-making reduced the odds of decision regret by 40% (OR 0.59, 0.41-0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: PC survivors may experience decision regret even after 16 years following RP. Promoting shared decision-making in light of both established and novel, potentially less invasive treatments at initial diagnosis may help mitigate long-term regret. Awareness regarding patients showing depressive symptoms or PSA anxiety should be encouraged to identify patients at risk of decision regret in need of additional psychological support.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) prospectively characterize the incidence of decision regret among women considering planned oocyte cryopreservation (planned OC), comparing those who pursued treatment vs those who did not freeze eggs, and (2) to identify baseline predictors for future decision regret.
METHODS: A total of 173 women seen in consultation for planned OC were followed prospectively. Surveys were administered at (1) baseline (< 1 week after initial consultation) and (2) follow-up, 6 months after planned OC among participants who froze eggs or 6 months following consultation in the absence of further communication to pursue treatment. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate-to-severe decision regret, indicated by a Decision Regret Scale score > 25. We also examined predictors of regret.
RESULTS: The incidence of moderate-to-severe regret over the decision to freeze eggs was 9% compared to 51% over the decision not to pursue treatment. Among women who froze eggs, adequacy of information at baseline to decide about treatment (aOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03, 0.87) and emphasis on future parenthood (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66, 0.99) were associated with reduced odds of regret. Forty-six percent of women who froze eggs regretted not doing so earlier. Among women who did not freeze eggs, the primary reasons were financial and time constraints, correlating with increased odds of decision regret in an exploratory analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing planned OC, the incidence of decision regret is low compared to the regret confronting women seen in consultation for planned OC but who do not pursue treatment. Provider counseling is key to offset the regret risk.

Never before COVID-19 had Canadians faced making health-related decisions in a context of significant uncertainty. However, little is known about which type of decisions and the types of difficulties that they faced.
We sought to identify the health-related decisions and decisional needs of Canadians.
Our study was codesigned by researchers and knowledge users (eg, patients, clinicians). Informed by the CHERRIES (the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) reporting guideline, we conducted 2 online surveys of random samples drawn from the Leger consumer panel of 400,000 Canadians. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) who received or were receiving any health services in the past 12 months for themselves (adults) or for their child (parent) or senior with cognitive impairment (caregiver). We assessed decisions and decisional needs using questions informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, including decisional conflict and decision regret using the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), respectively. Descriptive statistics were conducted for adults who had decided for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Significant decisional conflict (SDC) was defined as a total DCS score of >37.5 out of 100, and significant decision regret was defined as a total DRS score of >25 out of 100.
From May 18 to June 4, 2021, 14,459 adults and 6542 parents/caregivers were invited to participate. The invitation view rate was 15.5% (2236/14,459) and 28.3% (1850/6542); participation rate, 69.3% (1549/2236) and 28.7% (531/1850); and completion rate, 97.3% (1507/1549) and 95.1% (505/531), respectively. The survey was completed by 1454 (97.3%) adults and 438 (95.1%) parents/caregivers in English (1598/1892, 84.5%) or French (294/1892, 15.5%). Respondents from all 10 Canadian provinces and the northern territories represented a range of ages, education levels, civil statuses, ethnicities, and annual household income. Of 1892 respondents, 541 (28.6%) self-identified as members of marginalized groups. The most frequent decisions were (adults vs parents/caregivers) as follows: COVID-19 vaccination (490/1454, 33.7%, vs 87/438, 19.9%), managing a health condition (253/1454, 17.4%, vs 47/438, 10.7%), other COVID-19 decisions (158/1454, 10.9%, vs 85/438, 19.4%), mental health care (128/1454, 8.8%, vs 27/438, 6.2%), and medication treatments (115/1454, 7.9%, vs 23/438, 5.3%). Caregivers also reported decisions about moving family members to/from nursing or retirement homes (48/438, 11.0%). Adults (323/1454, 22.2%) and parents/caregivers (95/438, 21.7%) had SDC. Factors making decisions difficult were worrying about choosing the wrong option (557/1454, 38.3%, vs 184/438, 42.0%), worrying about getting COVID-19 (506/1454, 34.8%, vs 173/438, 39.5%), public health restrictions (427/1454, 29.4%, vs 158/438, 36.1%), information overload (300/1454, 20.6%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), difficulty separating misinformation from scientific evidence (297/1454, 20.4%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), and difficulty discussing decisions with clinicians (224/1454, 15.4%, vs 51/438, 11.6%). For 1318 (90.6%) adults and 366 (83.6%) parents/caregivers who had decided, 353 (26.8%) and 125 (34.2%) had significant decision regret, respectively. In addition, 1028 (50%) respondents made their decision alone without considering the opinions of clinicians.
During COVID-19, Canadians who responded to the survey faced several new health-related decisions. Many reported unmet decision-making needs, resulting in SDC and decision regret. Interventions can be designed to address their decisional needs and support patients facing new health-related decisions.