Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 29, 2025
A New Technique for Treating Low-risk Prostate Cancer—Super Active Surveillance
Published on: November 7, 2025
Efficacy of a decision support intervention for reducing decisional conflict in patients with elevated serum
Tsae-Jyy Wang1, Pei-Pei Chiu2, Kuang-Kuo Chen3
1, School of Nursing, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan.
Purpose:
The study purpose is to test the efficacy of a decision support intervention for reducing decisional conflict, increasing prostate biopsy knowledge, and enhancing decision self-efficacy in patients with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen.
Method:
The study is based on a randomized pre-post test design. A convenience sample of men with elevated prostate-specific antigen was recruited and 1:1 randomized to the intervention and control groups. The intervention group received the decision support intervention and the control group received health education. Data were collected at the baseline and post-test by using self-reported questionnaires, including the Prostate Biopsy Knowledge Scale, the Decision Self-Efficacy Scale, the Decisional Conflict Scale, and questions regarding the prostate biopsy decision (post-test only). Data on prostate-specific antigen levels were collected from the patients' medical records.
Results:
A total of 110 patients participated in the study. At baseline, the intervention group had significantly higher knowledge scores than the control group. The analysis of the covariance model with the baseline score as a covariate was used to analyze the intervention effect. After controlling for the baseline scores, the mean differences (95% CI) between the two groups were 11.75 (11.17-12.32), 76.45 (72.52-80.37), and -23.53 (-26.31-20.20) for knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and decisional conflict, respectively. The between-group difference in willingness to accept prostate biopsy at the post-test was not statistically significant (χ2= 1.704).
Conclusions:
The decision support intervention significantly reduced patients' decisional conflict while improving their knowledge and self-efficacy. However, the intervention did not affect patients' biopsy decision.
