BACKGROUND: The goals of this study were to 1) understand the reasons that men seek prostate carcinoma screening, in light of the ongoing medical controversy surrounding screening; and 2) assess the level of psychological distress and perceived risk among men seeking screening, and whether or not these variables were dependent on a man's family history of prostate carcinoma. METHODS: The subjects were 126 men (40% had a family history of prostate carcinoma) who participated in a free prostate carcinoma detection program. Questionnaires, which were completed prior to prostate carcinoma screening, included demographic and medical information, reasons for screening participation, general and cancer-related psychological distress, and perceived risk for prostate carcinoma. RESULTS: Among both family history groups, self-referral was the most common reason for attending the screening, compared with receiving a recommendation from a health professional or from a friend or family member. Men with a positive family history were not more distressed than those without a family history; but as the authors predicted, men with a positive family history of prostate carcinoma did report higher levels of perceived risk relative to those without a family history. In addition, an interaction revealed that psychological distress was greater among men with a family history only among those who also reported elevated perceived risk. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other prostate carcinoma screening programs, men in the current sample largely elected to attend the screening on their own. Furthermore, although perceived risk was higher among men with a family history compared with those without a family history, psychological distress was greater among men with a family history only among those who also reported elevated perceived risk. Thus, among men with a family history of the disease, perceived risk may be a marker of elevated psychological distress. Screening programs should assess family history and perceived risk because of the potential psychological implications for screening participants.
BACKGROUND: The goals of this study were to 1) understand the reasons that men seek prostate carcinoma screening, in light of the ongoing medical controversy surrounding screening; and 2) assess the level of psychological distress and perceived risk among men seeking screening, and whether or not these variables were dependent on a man's family history of prostate carcinoma. METHODS: The subjects were 126 men (40% had a family history of prostate carcinoma) who participated in a free prostate carcinoma detection program. Questionnaires, which were completed prior to prostate carcinoma screening, included demographic and medical information, reasons for screening participation, general and cancer-related psychological distress, and perceived risk for prostate carcinoma. RESULTS: Among both family history groups, self-referral was the most common reason for attending the screening, compared with receiving a recommendation from a health professional or from a friend or family member. Men with a positive family history were not more distressed than those without a family history; but as the authors predicted, men with a positive family history of prostate carcinoma did report higher levels of perceived risk relative to those without a family history. In addition, an interaction revealed that psychological distress was greater among men with a family history only among those who also reported elevated perceived risk. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to other prostate carcinoma screening programs, men in the current sample largely elected to attend the screening on their own. Furthermore, although perceived risk was higher among men with a family history compared with those without a family history, psychological distress was greater among men with a family history only among those who also reported elevated perceived risk. Thus, among men with a family history of the disease, perceived risk may be a marker of elevated psychological distress. Screening programs should assess family history and perceived risk because of the potential psychological implications for screening participants.
Authors: Floyd J Fowler; Michael J Barry; Beth Walker-Corkery; Jean-Francois Caubet; David W Bates; Jeong Min Lee; Alison Hauser; Mary McNaughton-Collins Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Pagona Roussi; Suzanne M Miller; Veda N Giri; Elias Obeid; Kuang-Yi Wen; Erin K Tagai; John Scarpato; Laura Gross; Gem Roy Journal: J Health Psychol Date: 2016-10-10
Authors: Julie B Schnur; Terry A DiLorenzo; Guy H Montgomery; Joel Erblich; Gary Winkel; Simon J Hall; Dana H Bovbjerg Journal: Behav Med Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.104
Authors: Soumitra S Bhuyan; Aastha Chandak; Niodita Gupta; Sudhir Isharwal; Chad LaGrange; Asos Mahmood; Dan Gentry Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-07-07
Authors: Randi M Williams; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Sara N Edmond; Caroline S Dorfman; Marc D Schwartz; John Lynch; Chiledum Ahaghotu; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-01-26
Authors: Gary L Ellison; Sally P Weinrich; Mimi Lou; Hongyan Xu; Isaac J Powell; Claudia R Baquet Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.798