A multi-site pilot study of a parent-centered tool to promote shared decision-making in hypospadias care

Abstract

Background: Using a user-centered design approach, we conducted a two-site pilot study to evaluate a decision aid (DA) website, the Hypospadias Hub, for parents of hypospadias patients. Objectives: The objectives were to assess the Hub's acceptability, remote usability, and feasibility of study procedures, and to evaluate its preliminary efficacy. Methods: From June 2021-February 2022, we recruited English-speaking parents (≥18 years old) of hypospadias patients (≤5 years) and delivered the Hub electronically ≤2 months before their hypospadias consultation. We collected website analytic data using an ad tracker plug-in. We inquired about treatment preference, hypospadias knowledge, and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) at baseline, after viewing the Hub (pre-consultation), and post-consultation. We administered the Decision Aid Acceptability Questionnaire (DAAQ) and the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale (PrepDM) which assessed how well the Hub prepared parents for decision-making with the urologist. Post-consultation, we assessed participants' perception of involvement in decision-making with the Shared Decision-making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). A bivariate analysis compared participants' baseline and pre/post-consultation hypospadias knowledge, decisional conflict, and treatment preference. Using a thematic analysis, we analyzed our semi-structured interviews to uncover how the Hub impacted the consultation and what influenced participants' decisions. Results: Of 148 parents contacted, 134 were eligible and 65/134 (48.5%) enrolled: mean age 29.2, 96.9% female, 76.6% White (Extended Summary Figure). Pre/post-viewing the Hub, there was a statistically significant increase in hypospadias knowledge (54.3 vs. 75.6, p < 0.001) and decrease in decisional conflict (36.0 vs. 21.9, p < 0.001). Most participants (83.3%) thought Hub's length and amount of information (70.4%) was "about right", and 93.0% found most or everything was clear. Pre/post-consultation, there was a statistically significant decrease in decisional conflict (21.9 vs. 8.8, p < 0.001). PrepDM's mean score was 82.6/100 (SD = 14.1); SDM-Q-9's mean score was 82.5/100 (SD = 16.7). DCS's mean score was 25.0/100 (SD = 47.03). Each participant spent an average of 25.75 min reviewing the Hub. Based on thematic analysis, the Hub helped participants feel prepared for the consultation. Discussion: Participants engaged extensively with the Hub and demonstrated improved hypospadias knowledge and decision quality. They felt prepared for the consultation and perceived a high degree of involvement in decision-making. Conclusion: As the first pilot test of a pediatric urology DA, the Hub was acceptable and study procedures were feasible. We plan to conduct a randomized controlled trial of the Hub versus usual care to test its efficacy to improve the quality of shared decision-making and reduce long-term decisional regret.