Skip to main content
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • Blog
  • Newsroom
  • Find It Fast
  • Help Center
  • Subscribe
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

PCORI

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Search form

  • About Us
    Close mega-menu

    About Us

    • Our Programs
    • Governance
    • Financials and Reports
    • Procurement Opportunities
    • Our Staff
    • Our Vision & Mission
    • Contact Us

    Fact Sheets: Learn More About PCORI

    Download fact sheets about out work, the research we fund, and our programs and initiatives.

    Find It Fast

    Browse through an alphabetical list of frequently accessed and searched terms for information and resources.

    Subscribe to PCORI Email Alerts

    Sign up for weekly emails to stay current on the latest results of our funded projects, and more.

  • Research & Results
    Close mega-menu

    Research & Results

    • Explore Our Portfolio
    • Research Fundamentals
    • Research Results Highlights
    • Putting Evidence to Work
    • Peer Review
    • Evidence Synthesis
    • About Our Research

    Evidence Updates from PCORI-Funded Studies

    These updates capture highlights of findings from systematic reviews and our funded research studies.

    Journal Articles About Our Funded Research

    Browse through a collection of journal publications that provides insights into PCORI-funded work.

    Explore Our Portfolio of Funded Projects

    Find out about projects based on the health conditions they focus on, the state they are in, and if they have results.

  • Topics
    Close mega-menu

    Topics

    • Addressing Disparities
    • Arthritis
    • Asthma
    • Cancer
    • Cardiovascular Disease
    • Children's Health
    • Community Health Workers
    • COVID-19
    • Dementia and Cognitive Impairment
    • Diabetes
    • Kidney Disease
    • Medicaid
    • Men's Health
    • Mental and Behavioral Health
    • Minority Mental Health
    • Multiple Chronic Conditions
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Obesity
    • Older Adults' Health
    • Pain Care and Opioids
    • Rare Diseases
    • Rural Health
    • Shared Decision Making
    • Telehealth
    • Transitional Care
    • Veterans Health
    • Women's Health

    Featured Topic: Women's Health

    Learn more about the projects we support on conditions that specifically or more often affect women.

  • Engagement
    Close mega-menu

    Engagement

    • The Value of Engagement
    • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
    • Influencing the Culture of Research
    • Engagement Awards
    • Engagement Resources
    • Engage with Us

    Engagement Tools and Resources for Research

    This searchable peer-to-peer repository includes resources that can inform future work in patient-centered outcomes research.

    Explore Engagement in Health Literature

    This tool enables searching for published articles about engagement in health research.

    Research Fundamentals: A New On-Demand Training

    It enables those new to health research or patient-centered research to learn more about the research process.

  • Funding Opportunities
    Close mega-menu

    Funding Opportunities

    • What & Who We Fund
    • What You Need to Know to Apply
    • Applicant Training
    • Merit Review
    • Awardee Resources
    • Help Center

    PCORI Funding Opportunities

    View and learn about the newly opened funding announcements and the upcoming PFAs in 2021.

    Tips for Submitting a Responsive LOI

    Find out what PCORI looks for in a letter of intent (LOI) along with other helpful tips.

    PCORI Awardee Resources

    These resources can help awardees in complying with the terms and conditions of their contract.

  • Meetings & Events
    Close mega-menu

    Meetings & Events

    • Upcoming
    • Past Events

    PCORI 2021 and Beyond

    During this webinar, PCORI leaders shared ways to get involved in PCOR, improvements to our funding opportunities, and more.

    Confronting COVID-19: A Webinar Series

    Learn more about the series and access recordings and summary reports of all six sessions.

    2020 PCORI Annual Meeting

    Watch recordings of all sessions, and view titles and descriptions of the posters presented at the virtual meeting.

You are here

  • Research & Results
  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Testing Whether Providing Older Patie...

This project has results

Testing Whether Providing Older Patients with a List of Questions to Ask Their Surgeons Improves Decision Making and Well-Being

Sign Up for Updates to This Study  

Results Summary and Professional Abstract

Results Summary
Download Summary Español (pdf) Audio Recording (mp3)

Results Summary

What was the research about?

Many patients need surgery to treat cancer or heart problems. For patients ages 60 and older, surgery has an increased risk of a long hospital stay, a nursing home stay, or life not going back to normal. When deciding on surgery, patients may not ask their doctors about all the trade-offs that matter to them. As a result, patients can be unprepared for what life is like after surgery.

In this study, the research team wanted to learn whether having a list of questions to ask the surgeon helped improve discussions and decisions about surgery. The team compared older patients who received the list with patients who didn’t.

What were the results?

Patients who did and didn’t receive the list were the same or similar in

  • The number or type of questions they asked surgeons
  • How confident they felt when talking with surgeons
  • How well they felt physically and mentally after treatment
  • Feelings of regret about the treatment received

Who was in the study?

The research team recruited 446 patients ages 60 and older who were thinking about surgery for cancer or heart problems. Patients were receiving care from one of 40 surgeons working at five hospitals across the United States. Of these patients, 83 percent were white, 9 percent were black, 3 percent were Asian, and 1 percent were another race or didn’t select a race; 17 percent were Hispanic or Latino. The average age was 72, and 56 percent were men.

What did the research team do?

The research team assigned patients by chance to one of two groups based on when they saw their surgeon. In one group, patients received a brochure by mail. The brochure had 11 questions to ask a surgeon when thinking about surgery. The group also received a letter from their surgeon asking them to use the brochure during the next office visit. In the other group, patients didn’t receive the brochure or letter before the visit with their surgeon.

The research team recorded patients’ conversations with the surgeon to count the number and type of questions asked. After the visit, patients filled out a survey about how confident they felt during the talk. Six weeks after surgery, patients filled out a survey about how well they felt and about any feelings of regret after treatment. Patients who decided against surgery filled out the same survey three months after enrolling in the study.

Patients who had major surgery and their family members gave input throughout the study.

What were the limits of the study?

Only about half of patients in the first group read or used the list of questions. Results may differ if more patients used the list.

Future research could look at how surgeons could improve discussions about surgery for older patients.

How can people use the results?

Doctors can use the results when considering how to help older patients make decisions about surgery.

Professional Abstract

Professional Abstract

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of using a question prompt list for surgical decisions versus not using one on improving patient engagement in the decision-making process, patient well-being, and postoperative treatment regret

Study Design

Design Elements Description
Design Randomized time-dependent cluster randomized controlled trial
Population 446 patients ages 60 and older considering surgery for oncologic or vascular conditions with one of 40 surgeons at 5 medical centers across the United States
Interventions/
Comparators
  • Question prompt list
  • Usual care
Outcomes Number and type of questions asked during pre-surgical visit, patient-reported efficacy during interactions with physician, change in patient-reported well-being after treatment, patient-reported treatment regret
Timeframe Up to 14 weeks of follow-up for study outcomes

This cluster-randomized stepped-wedge trial compared the effectiveness of a question prompt list versus usual care on improving patient engagement, well-being, and treatment regret for older patients considering surgery.

Researchers recruited 446 patients who were considering surgery for oncologic or vascular conditions and receiving care from 40 surgeons at five hospitals across the United States. Of these patients, 83% were white, 9% were black, 3% were Asian, 8% were another race, and 2% did not indicate a race; 17% were Hispanic or Latino. The average age was 72, and 56% were male.

Researchers randomized patients to one of two groups based on the timing of their visit with one of the participating surgeons. In the intervention group, patients received a brochure in the mail consisting of 11 questions to ask a surgeon when considering surgery. They also received a letter from their surgeon encouraging them to use the brochure during an upcoming surgical consultation. In the usual care group, patients did not receive a brochure or letter before their surgical consultation.

Researchers audio recorded the surgical consultation to count the number and type of questions patients asked. Patients also filled out a survey immediately after the visit to gauge their self-efficacy for obtaining information from the surgeon. Patients who underwent surgery completed a survey about well-being and treatment regret six weeks post-surgery. Patients who did not have surgery completed the survey 12–14 weeks after enrollment.

A group of older patients who had undergone major surgery and their family members helped create study materials, recruit study patients, interpret data, and share results.

Results

The two groups did not differ significantly in number or type of questions asked during the surgical consultation, or in patients’ well-being, treatment regret, or reported self-efficacy during interactions with physicians (all p<0.05).

Limitations

Only about half of patients in the intervention group read or used the list of questions, which may have affected the results.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the list of questions did not improve older patients’ engagement in the decision-making progress, patient well-being, or patient regret about treatment.

Future Research Needs

Future research could examine how surgeon behavior can improve patient participation in decision making.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

Journal Articles

Results of This Project

JAMA Surgery

Effectiveness of a Question Prompt List Intervention for Older Patients Considering Major Surgery: A Multisite Randomized Clinical Trial

Related Articles

The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

Palliative Care in trauma: Not just for the dying

The Journal of Surgical Research

Older Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: National Variability in Palliative Care

American Journal of Surgery

Emergency abdominal surgery in patients presenting from skilled nursing facilities: Opportunities for palliative care

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

Pre-injury Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) predicts functional outcomes at 6 months in older trauma patients

World Journal of Surgery

Patient Frailty Should Be Used to Individualize Treatment Decisions in Primary Hyperparathyroidism

BMJ Open

Navigating high-risk surgery: protocol for a multisite, stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial of a question prompt list intervention to empower older adults to ask questions that inform treatment decisions

More on this Project  

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

Peer reviewers commented and the researchers made changes or provided responses. Those comments and responses included the following:

  • The reviewers suggested that a more-narrow interpretation of the results was warranted. In particular, they recommended this because it appeared that less than half of the participants in the intervention arm of the study actually viewed the question prompt list (QPL) before talking with their surgeons and because a sizeable portion of patients did not talk with their surgeons at all before surgery. The reviewers noted that while this study did not demonstrate the efficacy of QPLs, other studies were more positive. The researchers agreed that their study lacked power to detect small effects of their intervention, but they did not want to state that they failed to see a greater effect because of the size of their study. The researchers noted it was also possible that the intervention did not work because surgeons dominated or controlled discussions so much that patients were not able to have their questions or concerns addressed. The researchers said their conclusions were specifically about their intervention, not whether QPLs in general are promising.
  • The reviewers asked about the questionnaire chosen to measure patient concerns and well-being, noting that it seemed like an odd choice since the questionnaire measures changes in how a concern is rated, but the “most pressing concern” that is being rated can change. The researchers said that in hindsight they would not have used this questionnaire as their primary measure of patient well-being. The researchers explained that their patient and family advisors were clear that their most pressing problem with preoperative communication was feeling blindsided by treatments postoperatively. Since there is no measurement for being blindsided, the researchers explained, they chose the questionnaire they chose because it allowed patients and families to identify and rate their own concerns rather than rate concerns that researchers had defined in advance. The researchers said this outcome measure turned out to be confusing because patients and families specified a large range of concerns. The researchers added that they plan to conduct another analysis to describe the range of concerns patients and families expressed, which they feel will be helpful to surgeons.
  • The reviewers asked for more details on missing data. The researchers said the rate of missing data was low and occurred randomly, rather than being concentrated in particular groups. Given the low rate of missing data, the researchers said they felt no need to make inferences about the missing data. The reviewers challenged this response, pointing out that the researchers used a complete case analysis, where they only included participant data in analyses where the data were complete. The researchers added a statement to their limitations that there were cases of substantial missing data for some measures, leading them to use the less stringent analysis strategy. 

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

View the COI disclosure form.

Project Details

Principal Investigator
Margaret L. Schwarze, MD, MPP
Project Status
Completed; PCORI Public and Professional Abstracts, and Final Research Report Posted
Project Title
Navigating High Risk Surgery: Empowering Older Adults to Ask Questions that Inform Decisions about Surgical Treatment
Board Approval Date
September 2015
Project End Date
December 2020
Organization
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Year Awarded
2015
State
Wisconsin
Year Completed
2020
Project Type
Research Project
Health Conditions  
Multiple/Comorbid Chronic Conditions
Intervention Strategies
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions
Populations
Individuals with Multiple Chronic/co-morbid Conditions
Low Income
Older Adults
Funding Announcement
Communication and Dissemination Research
Project Budget
$2,162,854
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
10.25302/10.2020.CDR.150227462
Study Registration Information
HSRP20162026
NCT02623335
Page Last Updated: 
December 1, 2020

About Us

  • Our Programs
  • Governance
  • Financials and Reports
  • Procurement Opportunities
  • Our Staff
  • Our Vision & Mission
  • Contact Us

Research & Results

  • Explore Our Portfolio
  • Research Fundamentals
  • Research Results Highlights
  • Putting Evidence to Work
  • Peer Review
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • About Our Research

Engagement

  • The Value of Engagement
  • Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer
  • Influencing the Culture of Research
  • Engagement Awards
  • Engagement Resources
  • Engage with Us

Funding Opportunities

  • What & Who We Fund
  • What You Need to Know to Apply
  • Applicant Training
  • Merit Review
  • Awardee Resources
  • Help Center

Meetings & Events

March 15
Priorities on the Health Horizon: Informing PCORI's Strategic Plan (Webinar)
March 15
PCORI Workshop on Methodologic Challenges in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research
March 16
Board of Governors Meeting: March 16, 2021

PCORI

Footer contact address

Patient-Centered Outcomes
Research Institute

1828 L Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 827-7700 | Fax: (202) 355-9558
[email protected]

Subscribe to Newsletter

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Vimeo

© 2011-2021 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademark Usage Guidelines | Credits | Help Center