For couples at high risk of transmitting a cancer predisposition to offspring, reproductive decision-making can be challenging. As the choice between available reproductive options is preference-sensitive, the use of a decision aid can support these couples in their decisional process. The present study aims to investigate preferences and needs of involved stakeholders regarding the development and implementation of a patient decision aid. Semi-structured interviews assessing the needs and preferences regarding the content and functionalities of a decision support program were conducted among seven couples at risk for hereditary cancer and among eight clinical geneticists involved in oncogenetic counseling. Many similarities were found between the expressed preferences and needs of both stakeholder groups concerning the content, barriers and facilitating factors regarding the use of the decision aid, and its implementation. Emphasis was placed on the use of simple non-medical language, an extensive explanation of the procedures and techniques used in prenatal diagnosis (PND) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and the role of health care providers to refer couples to the decision aid. Both stakeholder groups were in favor of incorporating narrative stories in the decision aid. Integrating the present findings with knowledge on reproductive decisional motives and considerations is essential in guiding the development of a decision aid that corresponds to the preferences and needs of end-users. Trial registration: NTR5467

An online decision aid to support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making was developed. A two-phase usability test was conducted among 12 couples (N = 22; 2 persons participated without their partner) at risk for hereditary cancer and 15 health care providers. Couples and health care providers expressed similar suggestions for improvements, and evaluated the modified decision aid as acceptable, easy to use, and comprehensible. The final decision aid was pilot tested (N = 16) with paired sample t tests comparing main outcomes (decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options and decision self-efficacy) before (T0), immediately (T1) and 2 weeks after (T2) use of the decision aid. Pilot testing indicated decreased decisional conflict scores, increased knowledge, and improved realistic expectations regarding the reproductive options, at T1 and T2. No effect was found for couples' decision self-efficacy. The positive findings during usability testing were thus reflected in the pilot study. The decision aid will be further evaluated in a nationwide pretest-posttest study to facilitate implementation in the onco-genetic counselling setting. Ultimately, it is expected that the decision aid will enable end-users to make an informed decision.

A nationwide pretest–posttest study was conducted in all clinical genetic centres in the Netherlands, to evaluate the effects of an online decision aid to support persons who have a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners in making an informed decision regarding reproductive options. Main outcomes (decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations, level of deliberation, and decision self‐efficacy) were measured before use (T0), immediately after use (T1), and at 2 weeks (T2) after use of the decision aid. Paired sample t tests were used to compute differences between the first and subsequent measurements. T0–T1 and T0–T2 comparisons indicate a significant reduction in mean decisional conflict scores with stronger effects for participants with high baseline decisional conflict. Furthermore, use of the decision aid resulted in increased knowledge levels and improved realistic expectations. Level of deliberation only increased for participants with lower baseline levels of deliberation. Decision self‐efficacy increased for those with low baseline scores, whereas those with high baseline scores showed a reduction at T2. It can be concluded that use of the decision aid resulted in several positive outcomes indicative of informed decision‐making. The decision aid is an appropriate and highly appreciated tool to be used in addition to reproductive counseling.

Individuals having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners face challenging decisions regarding their wish to have children. This study aimed to determine the effects of an online decision aid to support couples in making an informed decision regarding their reproductive options. A nationwide pretest-posttest study was conducted in the Netherlands among 131 participants between November 2016 and May 2018. Couples were eligible for participation if one partner had a pathogenic variant predisposing for an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome. Participants completed a questionnaire before use (T0), and at 3 months (T3) after use of the decision aid to assess the primary outcome measure informed decision-making, and the secondary outcome measures decisional conflict, knowledge, realistic expectations, level of deliberation, and decision selfefficacy. T0-T3 comparisons show an overall positive effect for all outcome measures (all ps < 0.05; knowledge (ES = − 1.05), decisional conflict (ES = 0.99), participants' decision self-efficacy (ES = −0.55), level of deliberation (ES = − 0.50), and realistic expectations (ES = − 0.44). Informed decision-making increased over time and 58.0% of the participants made an informed reproductive decision at T3. The online decision aid seems to be an appropriate tool to complement standard reproductive counseling to support our target group in making an informed reproductive decision. Use of the decision aid may lessen the negative psychological impact of decision-making on couples' daily life and wellbeing.

To support persons having a genetic predisposition to cancer and their partners during reproductive decision-making, an online decision aid was developed and evaluated. To maximize the impact of the support tool, this mixed methods study aims at developing the optimal implementation strategy for the decision aid. A questionnaire to assess the critical determinants that may affect this implementation was completed by health professionals involved in oncogenetic counselling (N = 46). Subsequently, semi-structured focus groups (N = 19) and individual telephonic interviews (N = 15) were performed with a subset of health professionals. All health professionals indicated to be willing to refer couples to the decision aid, preferably at the moment of receiving the genetic test result. They agreed that the primary requirement for implementation in daily practice was ease of referring couples and preferably free online accessibility. Referral to the tool was able to be included in the standard report couples receive after consultation, thereby making the use of additional paper-based materials redundant (e.g. flyers). Furthermore, incorporating the link to the decision aid on patient organization websites was suggested. Health professionals agreed that implementation would benefit more from promoting awareness regarding the decision aid rather than the inclusion of the tool in official clinical guidelines. To foster implementation of the decision aid, the distribution of online newsletters and the designation of a contact person charged with continued implementation in each Clinical Genetic Center were suggested. Based on these preferences and recommendations, the implementation of the online decision aid will be nationally executed to optimize impact.