Article

The Swedish prostate cancer paradox.

JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 03/1997; 277(6):497-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.277.6.497
Source: PubMed
Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: James D Brooks, Aug 05, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
57 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper reports on the application of decision counseling based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assist men in deciding whether or not to schedule a prostate cancer screening exam. The study is based on data that we collected from 129 men enrolled in the intervention arm of two randomized, controlled trials. First, we administered a baseline survey to gather data on participant sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions about prostate cancer and screening. Subsequently, a health educator conducted a session with each man to review an informational booklet on prostate cancer screening. Then, the health educator used an AHP-based decision process that identified the most important factors (both pro or con) that might influence prostate cancer screening preferences, clarified preferences related to scheduling a prostate screening exam, and elicited a scheduling decision. We performed univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify variables associated with the decision. Of the 129 men enrolled, 85 men (66 percent) decided to schedule a prostate cancer screening exam. Multivariable analyses showed that preference strengths and favorable perceptions of prostate cancer screening predicted the decision to screen.
    Interfaces 05/2009; 39(3):209-217. DOI:10.1287/inte.1080.0395 · 0.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One in six men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetimes; and the risk of dying from the disease is elevated by a factor of at least two among African-American men. Many asymptomatic men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer have their disease detected through a prostate cancer screening examination. The examination often includes both a digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen testing. Although annual screening is recommended by several organizations, others urge caution since no randomized trials have demonstrated that screening can reduce mortality from prostate cancer. Concern about prostate cancer screening is also based on the fact that diagnosis and treatment of early-stage prostate cancer can cause substantial adverse outcomes. To facilitate shared decision making between the patient and medical practitioner, it is important to provide information that is needed to make an informed decision. In this paper, we discuss the development and implementation of a decision-counseling protocol for prostate cancer screening. This protocol, which incorporates the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), is designed as a decision aid for use in facilitating decision making about whether or not to have a screening examination. We discuss several modifications to the standard AHP that were required to fit the needs of the target population. The counseling protocol has been applied in randomized trials involving diverse populations. While health educators required some training to administer the decision-counseling protocol, none was needed for the patients. The results have demonstrated that a well-designed decision-counseling protocol administered by a trained facilitator can be successfully implemented in a primary care patient population.
    Computers & Operations Research 09/2003; 30(10-30):1421-1434. DOI:10.1016/S0305-0548(02)00186-7 · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to review and summarize the current knowledge on conservative management of localized prostate cancer. Deferring treatment for low-grade, clinically localized prostate cancer is an acceptable treatment option for patients with a life expectancy of 10-15 y or less. The outcome of available studies on deferred treatment in selected series cannot be compared with the outcome in register studies where the patients have been managed with noncurative intent, nor can it be directly compared with the outcome of selected series on other treatments. The outcome of different treatments for localized prostate cancer can only be compared in randomized studies.
    Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases 01/1998; 1(2):59-65. DOI:10.1038/sj.pcan.4500215 · 2.83 Impact Factor