M M Schapira1, J VanRuiswyk. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee 53295-1000, USA. mschap@mcw.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer screening with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) continues to increase. Our goal was to test the effect of a prostate cancer screening decision-aid on patients' knowledge, beliefs, and use of prostate cancer screening tests. METHODS: Our study was a randomized controlled trial of a prostate cancer screening decision-aid consisting of an illustrated pamphlet as opposed to a comparison intervention. We included 257 men aged 50 to 80 years who were receiving primary care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The decision-aid provided quantitative outcomes of prostate cancer screening with DRE and PSA. We subsequently evaluated prostate cancer screening knowledge, beliefs, and test use. RESULTS: The illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in improving knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests: 95% of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of false-negative test results compared with 85% of the comparison group (P <.01). Ninety-one percent of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of a false-positive screening test result compared with 65% of the comparison group (P <.01). However, there was no difference in the use of prostate cancer screening between the experimental (82%) and comparison (84%) groups, (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: When used in a primary care setting, an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in increasing knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests but did not change the use of these tests.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer screening with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) continues to increase. Our goal was to test the effect of a prostate cancer screening decision-aid on patients' knowledge, beliefs, and use of prostate cancer screening tests. METHODS: Our study was a randomized controlled trial of a prostate cancer screening decision-aid consisting of an illustrated pamphlet as opposed to a comparison intervention. We included 257 men aged 50 to 80 years who were receiving primary care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The decision-aid provided quantitative outcomes of prostate cancer screening with DRE and PSA. We subsequently evaluated prostate cancer screening knowledge, beliefs, and test use. RESULTS: The illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in improving knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests: 95% of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of false-negative test results compared with 85% of the comparison group (P <.01). Ninety-one percent of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of a false-positive screening test result compared with 65% of the comparison group (P <.01). However, there was no difference in the use of prostate cancer screening between the experimental (82%) and comparison (84%) groups, (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: When used in a primary care setting, an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in increasing knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests but did not change the use of these tests.
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Jyoti Sharma; Elizabeth Justice; Jeb Justice; Cynthia Spiker; Larry E Laufman; Megan Price; Armin D Weinberg; Terry A Jacobson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Constantine Daskalakis; James Cocroft; Elisabeth J S Kunkel; Ernestine Delmoor; Matthew Liberatore; Robert L Nydick; Earl R Brown; Roy N Gay; Thomas Powell; Roberta Lee Powell Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Melissa R Partin; David Nelson; David Radosevich; Sean Nugent; Ann B Flood; Nancy Dillon; Jeremy Holtzman; Michele Haas; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Caroline S Dorfman; Randi M Williams; Elisabeth C Kassan; Sara N Red; David L Dawson; William Tuong; Elizabeth R Parker; Janet Ohene-Frempong; Kimberly M Davis; Alexander H Krist; Steven H Woolf; Marc D Schwartz; Mary B Fishman; Carmella Cole; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 2.796
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: Paul Sinfield; Richard Baker; Janette Camosso-Stefinovic; Andrew M Colman; Carolyn Tarrant; John K Mellon; William Steward; Roger Kockelbergh; Shona Agarwal Journal: Health Expect Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.377