Article

Do Men Make Informed Decisions about Prostate Cancer Screening? Baseline Results from the "Take the Wheel" Trial

Center for Community-Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Medical Decision Making (Impact Factor: 2.27). 02/2010; 31(1):108-20. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10369002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Baseline data from a randomized trial in 12 worksites were analyzed. Men aged 45+ (n = 812) completed surveys documenting screening history, screening preferences and decisions, CaP knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and decisional consistency. Psychosocial and demographic correlates of IDM were also assessed.
Approximately half of the sample had a prior PSA test, although only 35% reported having made an explicit screening decision. Across the sample, CaP knowledge was low (mean = 56%), although decision self-efficacy was high (mean = 78%), and the majority of men (81%) made decisions consistent with their stated values. Compared with those who were undecided, men who made an explicit screening decision had significantly higher levels of knowledge, greater decisional self-efficacy, and were more consistent in terms of making a decision in alignment with their values. They tended to be white, have high levels of income and education, and had discussed screening with their health care provider.
Many men undergo CaP screening without being fully informed about the decision. These findings support the need for interventions aimed at improving IDM about screening, particularly among men of color, those with lower levels of income and education, and those who have not discussed screening with their provider.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
77 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Prostate cancer is a commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Few men understand the complexities involved with prostate screening and treatment issues. The information that men seek and obtain may influence how they make decisions about prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to explore men's knowledge, information seeking and decision-making behaviour in relation to prostate cancer. Methods A qualitative design with the use of focus groups was adopted for this study. A total of 11 focus groups were conducted with 76 men. Each focus group was specific with regards to cancer diagnosis (with and without) and setting (rural or metropolitan). All focus group discussions were conducted by the same moderator and audio-taped. Transcriptions were analysed according to the grounded theory approach. Results Participants’ knowledge about prostate cancer and relevant treatments was low, despite a large awareness about tests. Patient education resources to facilitate informed decision making were highly valued. The internet was a primary source of information for prostate cancer patients. Patient education materials enabled a proactive approach to medical decision making. Participants demonstrated a preference to discuss treatment options with a health professional, independent of their treating doctor, to assist with decision making. Conclusions Men adopt a multi-factorial approach to decision making with respect to prostate cancer. The role of a health knowledge broker to independently assist patients may facilitate increased patient knowledge, awareness and decision making regarding prostate cancer treatment.
    American journal of men's health 03/2013; 10(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jomh.2012.10.004 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article presents an overview of the challenges that men encounter in making decisions about prostate cancer screening, including complex affective and cognitive factors and controversies in the interpretation of the evidence on prostate cancer screening. Shared decision making involving patient decision aids are discussed as approaches that can be used to improve the quality of prostate cancer screening decisions, including a close alignment between a man's values, goals, and preferences and his choice about screening.
    Urologic Clinics of North America 05/2014; 41(2):257-266. DOI:10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.008 · 1.35 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making-a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screening and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making. METHODS A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to questions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics. RESULTS Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared decision making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%-90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%-43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS Most US men report little shared decision making in PSA screening, and the lack of shared decision making is more prevalent in nonscreened than in screened men. Screening intensity is greatest with partial shared decision making, and different elements of shared decision making are associated with distinct patient characteristics. Shared decision making needs to be improved in decisions for and against PSA screening.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 07/2013; 11(4):306-14. DOI:10.1370/afm.1539 · 4.57 Impact Factor