Information needs of men regarding prostate cancer screening and the effect of a brief decision aid
Introduction
Several professional organizations now recommend that men should participate in decision-making about prostate cancer screening [1], [2], [3] due to the unknown benefits of screening in the face of potential physical, psychological, and financial harms. Such recommendations are responsive to a call from decision-making experts to include patients in decisions that may be sensitive to individuals’ personal values and preferences based on the uncertainty of the evidence or a close balance between potential harms and benefits [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
One way to encourage participation is through the use of decision aids, which are multi-media tools that provide balanced, evidence-based information and values clarification for a decision [11], [12] Decision aids on prostate cancer screening have been shown to increase knowledge about prostate cancer screening [13], [14], [15], [16]. Additionally, some have been shown to decrease interest in screening and use of screening tests [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Little is known, however, about which information in these decision aids affects men’s decisions about prostate cancer screening. Such information could help clinicians better deliver information on prostate cancer screening and could lead to the development of more effective and efficient decision aids.
In this study, we developed a pamphlet-based decision aid on prostate cancer screening and used it to measure which information had an effect on men’s interest in screening and what proportion of men changed their interest in screening after viewing the decision aid.
Section snippets
Designing and developing the decision aid
We developed a four-part decision aid that included information about (1) the natural history and epidemiology of prostate cancer, (2) the prostate specific antigen test, (3) the prostate biopsy and treatment options available for prostate cancer, and (4) the harms and benefits of screening presented in two balance sheets designed to promote the unbiased weighing of personal preferences. A detailed summary of the information we presented is listed in Fig. 4. The full decision aid is available
Results
We approached 313 men about participation in our study. Ninety-eight (31%) refused and 23 (7%) were ineligible because they had a prior history of prostate cancer (n=6), could not read, write, or speak English (n=8), or did not complete the decision aid and survey (n=9). One hundred eighty-eight men were determined to be eligible and agreed to participate in our study for a response rate of 65%.
Table 1 provides information about the study participants. Mean age was 60. Seventy percent were
Discussion
Interest in prostate cancer screening among patients in a university internal medicine clinic was high and remained high even after a brief decision aid. The decision aid increased the proportion of men who knew the advantages and disadvantages of screening and increased the proportion who knew enough to make a decision. It did not affect mean interest in screening, although 20% of men changed their interest category after viewing the decision aid. Men who were undecided at baseline were more
Practice implications
Despite the limitations, we believe our study has important implications for clinical practice. Because no one piece of information is influential to decision-making in all men, clinicians may want to tailor information to men’s individual needs. In deciding what information is necessary to present, clinicians should consider that a substantial portion of men do not know that whether to be screened or not is a decision and they do not feel they know the harms of screening. Decision aids can
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a University Research Council Grant through the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Sheridan was additionally supported by a National Research Services Award (Public Health Service Grant #PE 14001-14). Drs. Pignone and Lewis were additionally supported by the American Cancer Society Career Development Awards (#01-195-01 and #00-180-00).
References (23)
- et al.
American College of Preventive Medicine practice policy. Screening for prostate cancer in American men
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(1998) - et al.
Shared decision making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(1999) - et al.
What should men know about prostate-specific antigen screening before giving informed consent?
Am. J. Med.
(1998) - et al.
Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer
Patient Education Counseling
(1999) - US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med...
- American Urological Society. Early detection of prostate cancer, policy statement....
- et al.
Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics
JAMA
(1999) Patients’ health-care decision making: a framework for descriptive and experimental investigations
Med. Decis. Making
(1995)- et al.
Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies
Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care
(1998) Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making
J. Health Serv. Res. Policy
(1997)
Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice
Ann. Intern. Med.
Cited by (49)
Evaluation of Implementation Outcomes After Initiation of a Shared Decision-making Program for Men With Prostate Cancer
2019, UrologyCitation Excerpt :The fidelity of our PDA is higher than several decisional aids for conditions including Diabetes Mellitus (information card), prostate cancer (pamphlet presented by trained educator), and breast cancer (computer program). 17,18,21 Reports on other prostate cancer PDAs indicate fidelity similar to ours, though they were not software scalable implementations.18,22-24 Studies containing data regarding PDA adoption among physicians are scarce, yet a study on breast cancer PDA in the format of a video tape with an accompanying workbook also showed high program adoption, supporting the notion that physicians can be receptive to incorporating PDAs into their daily practice when properly engaged.21
Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
2018, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :All conclusions are based on results of the RCTs. Of the 1,042 identified records, 20 articles34–53 presenting 18 unique studies met inclusion criteria, 316 records were duplicates, and 706 did not meet the inclusion criteria and were therefore excluded (Figure 1 and Appendix Table 5, available online). Of the 706 excluded articles, 53 were excluded after the full texts were assessed: 22 reported outcomes that were irrelevant to this review, 12 did not indicate a DA as an intervention, seven had an unsuitable study design, seven appeared in the wrong type of publication, and five included populations that did not fit the study protocol.
What Have Patients Been Hearing From Providers Since the 2012 USPSTF Recommendation Against Routine Prostate Cancer Screening?
2017, Clinical Genitourinary CancerCitation Excerpt :Screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial primarily because of results from 2 large studies that identified conflicting results of the efficacy and effectiveness of PSA testing.1,2 Because of the low specificity and sensitivity of PSA testing, the American Cancer Society (ACS) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) initially suggested provider communication (PC), which can lead to informed and shared decision-making, as the preferred model to guide decisions regarding prostate cancer (PCa) screening.3 However, the 2012 USPSTF guidelines recommended against PCa screening.4
Why is perioperative chemotherapy for bladder cancer underutilized?
2014, Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original InvestigationsInformation needs of post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive early-stage breast cancer considering adjuvant endocrine therapy
2013, Patient Education and Counseling