OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of video and pamphlet interventions on patient prostate cancer (CaP) screening knowledge, decision-making participation, preferences, and behaviors. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING:Four midwestern Veterans Affairs medical facilities. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One thousand, one hundred fifty-two male veterans age 50 and older with primary care appointments at participating facilities were randomized and 893 completed follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to mailed pamphlet, mailed video, or usual care/control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes assessed by phone survey 2 weeks postintervention included a 10-item knowledge index; correct responses to questions on CaP natural history, treatment efficacy, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA)'s predictive value, and expert disagreement about the PSA; whether screening was discussed with provider; screening preferences; and PSA testing rates. Mean knowledge index scores were higher for video (7.44; P = .001) and pamphlet (7.26; P = .03) subjects versus controls (6.90). Video and pamphlet subjects reported significantly higher percentages of correct responses relative to controls to questions on CaP natural history (63%, 63%, and 54%, respectively); treatment efficacy (19%, 20%, and 5%), and expert disagreement (28%, 19%, and 8%), but not PSA accuracy (28%, 22%, and 22%). Pamphlet subjects were more likely than controls to discuss screening with their provider (41% vs 32%; P = .03) but video subjects were not (35%; P = .33). Video and pamphlet subjects were less likely to intend to have a PSA, relative to controls (63%, 65%, and 74%, respectively). PSA testing rates did not differ significantly across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed interventions enhance patient knowledge and self-reported participation in decision making, and alter screening preferences. The pamphlet and video interventions evaluated are comparable in effectiveness. The lower-cost pamphlet approach is an attractive option for clinics with limited resources.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of video and pamphlet interventions on patientprostate cancer (CaP) screening knowledge, decision-making participation, preferences, and behaviors. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Four midwestern Veterans Affairs medical facilities. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One thousand, one hundred fifty-two male veterans age 50 and older with primary care appointments at participating facilities were randomized and 893 completed follow-up. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized to mailed pamphlet, mailed video, or usual care/control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes assessed by phone survey 2 weeks postintervention included a 10-item knowledge index; correct responses to questions on CaP natural history, treatment efficacy, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA)'s predictive value, and expert disagreement about the PSA; whether screening was discussed with provider; screening preferences; and PSA testing rates. Mean knowledge index scores were higher for video (7.44; P = .001) and pamphlet (7.26; P = .03) subjects versus controls (6.90). Video and pamphlet subjects reported significantly higher percentages of correct responses relative to controls to questions on CaP natural history (63%, 63%, and 54%, respectively); treatment efficacy (19%, 20%, and 5%), and expert disagreement (28%, 19%, and 8%), but not PSA accuracy (28%, 22%, and 22%). Pamphlet subjects were more likely than controls to discuss screening with their provider (41% vs 32%; P = .03) but video subjects were not (35%; P = .33). Video and pamphlet subjects were less likely to intend to have a PSA, relative to controls (63%, 65%, and 74%, respectively). PSA testing rates did not differ significantly across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed interventions enhance patient knowledge and self-reported participation in decision making, and alter screening preferences. The pamphlet and video interventions evaluated are comparable in effectiveness. The lower-cost pamphlet approach is an attractive option for clinics with limited resources.
Authors: David M Radosevich; Melissa R Partin; Sean Nugent; David Nelson; Ann Barry Flood; Jeremy Holtzman; Nancy Dillon; Michele Haas; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2004-08
Authors: Carmen L Lewis; Jared Adams; Ming Tai-Seale; Qiwen Huang; Sarah B Knowles; Matthew E Nielsen; Michael P Pignone; Louise C Walter; Dominick L Frosch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stephen A Rosenberg; David M Francis; Craig R Hullet; Zachary S Morris; Jeffrey V Brower; Bethany M Anderson; Kristin A Bradley; Michael F Bassetti; Randall J Kimple Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-08-01