Clinical prediction models (CPMs) predict the future outcomes of individual patients have grown in number and importance in cancer care. The malignancy that has attracted perhaps the greatest recent interest and activity in predictive modeling is prostate cancer. For populations of patients, the comparative effectivness of these interventions is either equivalent or unknown. CPMs have thus been increasingly advocated for by researchers and clinicians. Despite this increase, we know little about whether they are achieving their intended goal of promoting rational and informed decision making.
We need to know how CPMs can be improved to best meet the needs of patients. We therefore propose a formative, qualitative study to begin to answer these questions. Specific aims include:
- To describe the extent of prostate cancer survivors' experiences with CPMs, the settings and circimstances in which they have been exposed to CPMs and individualized risk information, and their perceptions of the value of this information in decision making
- To assess prostate cancer surviviors' understanding of individualized risk information about prostate cancer treatment outcomes, and to identify potential barriers to understanding.
- To elicit prostate cancer survivors' views on how existing CPMs might be made more patient-centered, and their reactions to novel alternative risk communication methods.