Literature DB >> 12209688

Impact of undergoing prostate carcinoma screening on prostate carcinoma-related knowledge and distress.

Kathryn L Taylor1, Rebecca Shelby, Jon Kerner, William Redd, John Lynch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the ongoing controversy regarding the utility of prostate carcinoma (PCa) screening, the prevalence of asymptomatic men who participate in free PCa screening programs is on the rise. However, this increased awareness has not been associated with increased knowledge about the potential limitations of PCa creening. We conducted a prospective assessment to delineate men's motivations for undergoing screening and to determine the impact of screening on psychological distress and on men's knowledge about PCa screening.
METHODS: We conducted two telephone interviews with a group of 136 men registered to undergo free PCa screening at two hospital-based sites. The first interview was conducted before screening and the second interview followed receipt of the screening results. Interviews assessed demographics and screening history, reasons for undergoing the current screening, cancer-related and general psychological distress, knowledge of risk factors for PCa, and knowledge of the benefits and limitations of screening. Only participants with normal screening results were included in these analyses.
RESULTS: "Seeking peace of mind about prostate cancer" was rated as the most important reason for undergoing screening. PCa-related distress decreased following receipt of a negative result (P < 0.01). Stratified analyses indicated that this was particularly true among younger men and African American men (both Ps < 0.001). Awareness of the benefits of screening was very high, but awareness of limitations was low, with fewer limitations reported following screening compared with prescreening (P < 0.01). Although awareness of the established risk factors improved following screening, controversial risk factors (i.e., those with limited empirical support) and factors that were unrelated to PCa risk were also rated as more important in the development of PCa than they were before screening (all Ps < 0.05). Therefore, the results may reflect that following screening, participants were simply more likely to endorse plausible risk factors, rather than actually reflecting an increase in participants' knowledge.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the importance of developing informed consent procedures and educational programs for the asymptomatic men who participate in free prostate screening programs each year, as the decision to be screened is being made without the benefit of a full understanding of the current state of medical knowledge about PCa screening. Until the definitive results of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial are available, improved patient education is needed to assist men in making screening decisions consistent with their own preferences. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12209688     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  14 in total

1.  [Is the prostate cancer screening behaviour of men with familial predisposition predictable?].

Authors:  T Paiss; D Kahn; R Küfer; C Maier; W Vogel; J E Gschwend; R E Hautmann; K Herkommer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Development of a spiritually based educational intervention to increase informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among church-attending African American men.

Authors:  Cheryl L Holt; Theresa A Wynn; Penny Southward; Mark S Litaker; Sanford Jeames; Emily Schulz
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2009-09

3.  Underuse of colorectal cancer screening among men screened for prostate cancer: a teachable moment?

Authors:  Sara N Red; Elisabeth C Kassan; Randi M Williams; Sofiya Penek; John Lynch; Chiledum Ahaghotu; Kathryn L Taylor
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  The role of anxiety in prostate carcinoma: a structured review of the literature.

Authors:  William Dale; Pinar Bilir; Misop Han; David Meltzer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Effects of a randomized trial comparing standard and enhanced counseling for men at high risk of prostate cancer as a function of race and monitoring style.

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

6.  Perceived risk and worry about prostate cancer: a proposed conceptual model.

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

7.  Impact of prostate cancer testing: an evaluation of the emotional consequences of a negative biopsy result.

Authors:  R C Macefield; C Metcalfe; J A Lane; J L Donovan; K N L Avery; J M Blazeby; L Down; D E Neal; F C Hamdy; K Vedhara
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Fostering informed decisions: a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of a decision aid among men registered to undergo mass screening for prostate cancer.

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

9.  Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Kathryn L Taylor; Randi M Williams; Kimberly Davis; George Luta; Sofiya Penek; Samantha Barry; Scott Kelly; Catherine Tomko; Marc Schwartz; Alexander H Krist; Steven H Woolf; Mary B Fishman; Carmella Cole; Edward Miller
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  The influence of stress, depression, and anxiety on PSA screening rates in a nationally representative sample.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Phil Schumm; Supriya G Mohile; William Dale
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.