Literature DB >> 12036219

Knowledge, attitudes and experience associated with testing for prostate cancer: a comparison between male doctors and men in the community.

P Livingston1, P Cohen, M Frydenberg, R Borland, D Reading, V Clarke, D Hill.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Debate about testing for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) continues. The evidence of benefit from screening for prostate cancer using PSA tests is inconclusive, and it is unclear how PSA can be used most effectively in the detection of prostate cancer. Given the lack of consensus, it is important that consumers understand the issues in a way that will permit them to decide whether or not to have a test and, if symptomatic, how their condition is managed. AIMS: To compare prostate cancer knowledge, attitudes and testing experiences reported by male doctors and men in the community, despite the lack of evidence of a benefit.
METHODS: The primary method for ascertaining the attitudes of male doctors (MD) was a telephone survey, with some doctors electing to complete a written survey. Each MD was selected, at random, from a register of male practitioners aged > or = 49 years of age. A total of 266 MD participated in the survey. The community sample (CS) was accessed using a telephone survey. Five hundred male Victorian residents aged > or = 49 years of age participated in the study.
RESULTS: Knowledge - Overall, 55% of the CS indicated correctly that prostate disease is sometimes cancer, compared to 83% of MD. Attitudes - Fifty-five per cent of MD believed men should be tested for prostate disease at least every 2 years, compared to 68% of men in the CS. Testing experience - Forty-five per cent of MD had been tested for prostate cancer in the past, and 92% of those tests were reported as negative. In the CS, 56% had been tested for prostate cancer in the past, and 78% of the results were reported as negative. The significant independent predictors of having had a prostate test among MD were: (i) age (> or = 60 years; odds ratio (OR): 1.59; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.30-1.88) and (ii) positive attitudes towards regular testing for prostate cancer (OR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.98-2.56). The significant independent predictors for the CS were: (i) age (> or = 60 years; OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.40-1.89), (ii) being married (OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.00-1.60), (iii) knowledge that prostate disease was sometimes cancer (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.26-1.66) and (iv) positive attitudes towards regular testing for prostate cancer (OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.90-2.34).
CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight that testing for prostate cancer is widespread in the community and in the medical profession. Further research should be undertaken to identify how to help men make fully informed decisions about prostate cancer testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12036219     DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-5994.2002.00211.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Intern Med J        ISSN: 1444-0903            Impact factor:   2.048


  4 in total

1.  Brief report: physicians and their personal prostate cancer-screening practices with prostate-specific antigen. A national survey.

Authors:  Evelyn C Y Chan; Michael J Barry; Sally W Vernon; Chul Ahn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Factors prompting PSA-testing of asymptomatic men in a country with no guidelines: a national survey of general practitioners.

Authors:  Frances J Drummond; Anne-Elie Carsin; Linda Sharp; Harry Comber
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 2.497

3.  Factors related to use of prostate cancer screening: the Alberta Tomorrow Project.

Authors:  Harriet Richardson; Kristan J Aronson; Alison James; Elizabeth S McGregor; Heather Bryant
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2007-04-14

4.  Predicting prostate cancer progression: protocol for a retrospective cohort study to identify prognostic factors for prostate cancer outcomes using routine primary care data.

Authors:  Samuel W D Merriel; Margaret T May; Richard M Martin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.