Treatment Preferences of Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Before and After Using a Web-based Decision Aid

R.E.D. Lamers*, F.C. van der Wijden, I.B. de Angst, M. de Vries, M. Cuypers, H.H.E. van Melick, J.S. de Beij, D.J.A.J. Oerlemans, K. van de Beek, R.J.L.H.R. Bosch, P.J.M. Kil

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Web of Science)


OBJECTIVE To evaluate treatment preferences of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) before and after using a web-based decision aid (DA).PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 2016 and January 2017 patients were invited to use a web-based LUTS/BPH DA. Treatment preferences (for lifestyle advices, medication or surgery) before and after DA use and responses on values clarification exercises were extracted from the DA.RESULTS In total, 126 patients were included in the analysis. Thirty-four percent (43/126) had not received any previous treatment and were eligible for (continuation of) lifestyle advices or to start medication, as initial treatment. The other 66% (83/126) did use medication and were eligible, either for continuing medication or to undergo surgery. Before being exposed to the DA, 67 patients (53%) were undecided and 59 patients (47%) indicated an initial treatment preference. Half of the patients who were initially undecided were able to indicate a preference after DA use (34/67, 51%). Of those with an initial preference, 80% (47/59) confirmed their initial preference after DA use. Five out of 7 values clarification exercises used in the DA were discriminative between final treatment preferences. In 79%, the treatment preferred after DA use matched the received treatment. Overall, healthcare providers were positive about DA feasibility.CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that a LUTS/BPH DA may help patients to confirm their initial treatment preference and support them in forming a treatment preference if they did not have an initial preference. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)138-145
Number of pages8
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2020


  • impact
  • making program
  • quality
  • randomized controlled-trial

Cite this