Professionals’ decision-making in recommending communication aids in the UK : competing considerations

Existing research suggests the provision of communication aids for children with complex communication needs can have significant positive impacts on health and quality-of-life. The process of clinical decision-making related to the recommendation of high-tech communication aids is not well documented or evaluated, and research evidence related to the provision of these aids remains limited. This study aimed to understand the factors that specialized AAC professionals in the UK consider when recommending high-tech communication aids. Purposive sampling was used to recruit teams to six focus groups, each of which centred on a team’s recent recommendation process (i.e. a discussion following a real-time assessment session, where the team attempted to arrive at an agreed recommendation for a specific child). Thematic network analysis was used to interpret data from the focus group discussions. Participants identified a wide range of child characteristics, access features, and communication aid attributes in weighing up decisions for individual children. Findings suggest that specialized AAC professionals in the UK prioritize access features over language considerations in their communication aid recommendations. An explanatory model was developed to illustrate the interaction effect that several competing considerations may have on decision-making. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed

Decision-making in communication aid recommendations in the UK : cultural and contextual influencers

High-tech communication aids are one form of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) intervention offered to children following an assessment process to identify the most appropriate system based on their needs. Professional recommendations are likely to include consideration of child characteristics and communication aid attributes. Recommendations may be influenced by contextual factors related to the cultural work practices and service context of professionals involved, as well as by contextual factors from the child’s life including their family environment and wider settings. The aim of this study was to explore the influence of cultural and contextual factors on the real-time decision-making processes of specialized AAC professionals in the UK. A total of six teams were recruited to the study. Each team carried out an assessment appointment related to a communication aid recommendation for a child and family. Following the appointment, each team participated in a focus group examining their decision-making processes during the preceding assessment. Inductive coding was used to analyse the transcribed data, and three organizing themes emerged relating to the global theme of Cultural and Contextual Influencers on communication aid decision-making. An explanatory model was developed to illustrate the funnelling effect that contextual factors may have on decision-making, which can substantially alter the nature and timing of a communication aid recommendation. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed

Attributes of communication aids as described by those supporting children and young people with AAC

Background Those supporting children and young people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) contribute to ongoing complex decision-making about communication aid selection and support. Little is known about how these decisions are made in practice and how attributes of the communication aid are described or considered. Aims To understand how communication aid attributes were described by those involved in AAC recommendations and support for children and young people, and how these attributes were described as impacting on AAC use. Methods & Procedures A secondary qualitative analysis was completed of interview and focus group data from 91 participants involved in the support of 22 children and young people. Attributes of communication aids described by participants were extracted as themes and this paper reports a descriptive summary of the identified software (non-hardware) attributes. Main Contribution Decisions were described in terms of comparisons between commercially available pre-existing vocabulary packages. Attributes related to vocabulary, graphic representation, consistency and intuitiveness of design, and ease of editing were identified. Developmental staging of vocabularies, core and fringe vocabulary, and vocabulary personalization were attributes that were described as being explicitly considered in decisions. The potential impact of graphic symbol choice did not seem to be considered strongly. The physical and social environment was described as the predominant factor driving the choice of a number of attributes. Conclusions & Implications Specific attributes that appear to be established in decision-making in these data have limited empirical research literature. Terms used in the literature to describe communication aid attributes were not observed in these data. Practice-based evidence does not appear to be supported by the available research literature and these findings highlight several areas where empirical research is needed in order to provide a robust basis for practice. What This Paper Adds What is already known on the subject Communication aid attributes are viewed as a key consideration by practitioners and family members in AAC decision-making; however, there are few empirical studies investigating language and communication attributes of communication aids. It is important to understand how those involved in AAC recommendations and support view communication aid attributes and the impact different attributes have. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study provides a picture of how communication aids are described by practitioners and family members involved in AAC support of children and young people. A range of attributes is identified from the analysis of these qualitative data as well as information about how participants perceive these attributes as informing decisions. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study provides a basis on which practitioners and others involved in AAC support for children and young people can review and reflect on their own practice and so improve the outcomes of AAC decisions. The study provides a list of attributes that appear to be considered in practice and so also provides a resource for researchers looking to ensure there is a strong empirical basis for AAC decisions

Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received

Background The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy. Objective To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts. Design, setting, and participants This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. Intervention Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores. Results and limitations According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa. Conclusions Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group. Patient summary More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (prostate testing for cancer and treatment [ProtecT] study)

Objective To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. Patients and Methods Men aged 50–69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. Results Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. Conclusion Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes

What’s important in AAC decision making for children? Evidence from a best–worst scaling survey

The choice of which AAC device to provide for a child can have long lasting consequences, but little is known about the decision-making of AAC professionals who make recommendations in this context. A survey was conducted with AAC professionals using best–worst scaling methodology examining what characteristics of children and attributes of AAC devices are considered most important in decision-making. A total of 19 child characteristics and 18 device attributes were selected by the authors from lists generated from literature reviews and from focus groups with AAC professionals, people who use AAC, and other stakeholders. The characteristics and attributes were used to develop two best–worst scaling surveys that were administered to 93 AAC professionals based in the UK. The relative importance of characteristics/attributes was estimated using statistical modelling. Child characteristics related to language and communication, cognitive and learning abilities, and personality traits were generally found to be more important than physical features. Communication, language, and interface-related AAC device attributes were generally more important than hardware and physical attributes. Respondent demographics (e.g., experience, professional background) did not seem to influence the importance assigned to device characteristics or attributes. Findings may inform both future quantitative research into decision-making and efforts to improve decision-making in practice

Radiotherapy for prostate cancer: is it ‘what you do’ or ‘the way that you do it’? A UK perspective on technique and quality assurance

Aims: The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history of prostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial. Materials and methods: The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localised prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n = 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era. Results: There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outlining review showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of the prostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints in ProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent. Conclusion: The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials