A scoping review of web-based, interactive, personalized decision-making tools available to support breast cancer treatment and survivorship care. Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice Wojcik, K. M., Kamil, D., Zhang, J., Wilson, O. W., Smith, L., Butera, G., Isaacs, C., Kurian, A., Jayasekera, J. 2024

Abstract

We reviewed existing personalized, web-based, interactive decision-making tools available to guide breast cancer treatment and survivorship care decisions in clinical settings.The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched PubMed and related databases for interactive web-based decision-making tools developed to support breast cancer treatment and survivorship care from 2013 to 2023. Information on each tool's purpose, target population, data sources, individual and contextual characteristics, outcomes, validation, and usability testing were extracted. We completed a quality assessment for each tool using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard (IPDAS) instrument.We found 54 tools providing personalized breast cancer outcomes (e.g., recurrence) and treatment recommendations (e.g., chemotherapy) based on individual clinical (e.g., stage), genomic (e.g., 21-gene-recurrence score), behavioral (e.g., smoking), and contextual (e.g., insurance) characteristics. Forty-five tools were validated, and nine had undergone usability testing. However, validation and usability testing included mostly White, educated, and/or insured individuals. The average quality assessment score of the tools was 16 (range: 6-46; potential maximum: 63).There was wide variation in the characteristics, quality, validity, and usability of the tools. Future studies should consider diverse populations for tool development and testing.There are tools available to support personalized breast cancer treatment and survivorship care decisions in clinical settings. It is important for both cancer survivors and physicians to carefully consider the quality, validity, and usability of these tools before using them to guide care decisions.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s11764-024-01567-6

View details for PubMedID 38538922

View details for PubMedCentralID 5682364