BACKGROUND: Many organizations recommend clinicians use structured communication processes, referred to as \"shared decision making,\" to improve patient-reported outcomes for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).
OBJECTIVE: Which components of high-quality patient-centered communication are associated with decision regret and distress?
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal, repeated measures, cohort study among patients undergoing lung cancer screening in three different healthcare systems. We surveyed participants using validated measures of decision regret, decision satisfaction, distress, and patient-clinician communication domains up to a year after the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for LCS. For longitudinal analyses, we applied a series of generalized estimating equations to measure the association of the \"patient as person\" communication domain, screening knowledge, and decision concordance with decision regret and distress.
RESULTS: When assessed 2-4 weeks after the LDCT, 202 (58.9%) and 8 (2.3%) of 343 total respondents reported mild and moderate/severe decision regret, respectively, while 29 (9.2%) participants of 315 total reported mild distress and 19 (6.0%) moderate or greater distress. The mean ± SD decision satisfaction scores (0 to 10 scale) were 9.82 ± 0.89, 9.08 ± 1.54, and 6.13 ± 3.40 among those with no, mild, and moderate/severe regret respectively. Distress scores remained low after the LDCT, even among those with nodules. Patient-centered communication domains were not associated with decision regret or distress.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing LCS rarely experience moderate or greater decision regret and distress. Although many participants reported mild decision regret, most were very satisfied over the year after their LDCT for LCS. Communication processes were not associated with regret and distress, suggesting that it may be challenging for communication interventions to reduce the harms of LCS.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationships among myopia treatment, decision regret, shared decision-making, and vision-related quality of life among parents of 6-12-year-old children with myopia.
METHODS: An online Google Forms questionnaire was developed using a cross-sectional design and distributed between January 16 and August 22, 2023. Parents of 6-12-year-old children with myopia were recruited through school nurses working in Taiwan. The children\'s and parents\' demographic data were collected. Study instruments included the Decisional Regret Scale, Shared Decision-Making, and Vision-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors influencing vision-related quality of life.
RESULTS: Of 350 parents contacted, 314 questionnaires were analyzed. Among the respondents, 77.39 % (n = 243) were mothers, and most were aged >40 years. The mean age of children at myopia diagnosis was 7.12 ± 1.24 years; 46.50 % had < - 1.0 diopters of refractive error. Atropine eye drops were the primary treatment; 17.71 % of children were prescribed orthokeratology for myopia control. Parents reported low levels of decision regret and moderate levels of shared decision-making and vision-related quality of life. Children\'s age, use of orthokeratology lenses, decision regret, and shared decision-making significantly influenced the vision-related quality of life reported by the parents, accounting for 22.5 % of the variance.
CONCLUSIONS: The study\'s findings emphasize the importance of addressing decision regret and promoting shared decision-making in myopia treatment. Eye care professionals should discuss treatment options thoroughly before making decisions. Through shared decision-making, parents can make informed choices about treatments based on a comprehensive understanding of the benefits and drawbacks, ultimately benefitting children\'s vision health.

OBJECTIVE: Family caregivers of older adults receiving home care often find themselves in situations in which they must make important and difficult decisions, which can cause conflict and regret. To tailor shared decision making in this context, we aimed to identify the most difficult decisions they faced, assess their levels of decision regret, and explore the associated factors.
METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional design.
METHODS: Participants included 165 caregivers of older adults who received home care services in Korea.
METHODS: We identified difficult decisions perceived by family caregivers of older adults and evaluated decision regret using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), burden of care using the Short Zarit Burden Inventory, and Preference Control Scale (PCS). We then performed descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate linear regression analyses to identify factors predicting decision regret.
RESULTS: The most frequently reported difficult decisions were related to place of living (71.6%), management of health conditions (15.1%), and end-of-life decisions (13.3%). The mean DCS score was 37.09 (12.67), the DRS score was 32.33 (15.91), and the burden score was 21.81 (8.25). Matching decisions with preferences and aligning decision-making roles significantly reduced regret, while decision conflicts increased regret.
CONCLUSIONS: The positive associations between decision regret, decision conflict, and the alignment of decision-making roles highlight the intricate dynamics involved in the decision-making process for family caregivers. These findings emphasize the need for tailored interventions that recognize and address the diverse factors influencing caregivers\' decision-making experiences. Future research exploring the efficacy of targeted interventions such as decision-support programs or caregiver education initiatives could offer valuable insights into mitigating decision-related challenges and improving the overall well-being of both caregivers and care recipients.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the decision effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) on the decision-making effect of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.
METHODS: Two authors independently searched ten electronic databases [Web of science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, EBSCO, CBM, CNKI, WanFang DATA and Vip database], to include randomized controlled trials of interventions through PtDAs in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease published from the inception of the database until April 2024. Two authors conducted a comprehensive quality evaluation (Cochrane 5.1.0) before independently extracting and analyzing the data with RevMan 5.2.
RESULTS: The study included 11 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1613 patients. According to the results, PtDAs can improve the decision knowledge [SMD = 0.53, 95% CI (0.26, 0.80), P = 0.0002] and decision preparation [SMD = 2.34, 95% CI (2.04, 2.65), P < 0.00001] of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Additionally, there was a substantial decrease in the levels of decision regret [SMD = - 1.33, 95% CI (- 2.11, - 0.55), P < 0.05] and decision conflict [SMD = - 0.88, 95% CI (- 1.47, - 0.28), P = 0.004].
CONCLUSIONS: The current available evidence indicates that PtDAs can significantly enhance the decision knowledge and decision preparation of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Additionally, PtDAs can reduce the levels of decision regret and decision conflict.
BACKGROUND: CRD42023433798.

BACKGROUND: Health-related decision-making is a complex process given the variability of treatment options, conflicting treatment plans, time constraints and variable outcomes. This complexity may result in patients experiencing decisional regret following decision-making. Nonetheless, literature on decisional regret in the healthcare context indicates inconsistent characterization and operationalization of this concept.
OBJECTIVE: To conceptually define the phenomenon of decisional regret and synthesize the state of science on patients\' experiences with decisional regret.
METHODS: A concept analysis.
METHODS: Rodgers\' evolutionary method guided the conceptualization of this review. An interdisciplinary literature search was conducted from 2003 until 2023 using five databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. The search informed how the concept manifested across health-related literature. We used PRISMA-ScR checklist to guide the reporting of this review.
RESULTS: Based on the analysis of 25 included articles, a conceptual definition of decisional regret was proposed. Three defining attributes underscored the negative cognitive-emotional nature of this concept, post-decisional experience relating to the decision-making process, treatment option and/or treatment outcome and an immediate or delayed occurrence. Antecedents preceding decisional regret comprised initial psychological or emotional status, sociodemographic determinants, impaired decision-making process, role regret, conflicting treatment plans and adverse treatment outcomes. Consequences of this concept included positive and negative outcomes influencing quality of life, health expectations, patient-provider relationship and healthcare experience appraisal. A conceptual model was developed to summarize the concept\'s characteristics.
CONCLUSIONS: The current knowledge on decisional regret is expected to evolve with further exploration of this concept, particularly for the temporal dimension of regret experience. This review identified research, clinical and policy gaps informing our nursing recommendations for the concept\'s evolution.
UNASSIGNED: This concept analysis examines existing literature and does not require patient-related data collection. The methodological approach does not necessitate collaboration with the public.

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.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported quality of life and incidence of decision regret in patients undergoing radial (RFFF) and ulnar forearm-free flaps (UFFF) reconstruction.
METHODS: Patients undergoing either RFFF or UFFF were assessed with the University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) and Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaires, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), both before and at least 12 months post-reconstruction.
RESULTS: In total, 40 RFFF and 40 UFFF were included. Harvesting time was longer in RFFF (p = 0.043), and the donor-site defect was significantly larger in RFFF than in UFFF (p = 0.044). Patients with UFFF scored better UW-QOL in the appearance, pain, activity, mood, and social functioning domains (p < 0.05). However, the RFFF group excelled in swallowing and chewing domains. The DRS score revealed a significant difference between RFFF and UFFF, with scores of 36.26 versus 27.36, respectively. Moreover, the mean DRS score reduced at 12 months compared with 6 months, significantly superior for UFFF.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral cancer patients reconstructed with UFFF exhibited a better appearance, social domain, and mild decision regret compared with RFFF, indicating that the UFFF may contribute to improving postoperative quality of life in oral cancer patients.

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.