Literature DB >> 15544681

A community study using specified and unspecified scenarios to investigate men's views about PSA screening.

Melina Gattellari1, Jeanette E Ward.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We explored the influence of different but factual scenarios about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on men's interest in having PSA screening to detect early prostate cancer.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional, representative community survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 514 men (89% response fraction) aged 50-70 years randomly selected from a telephone directory database in Sydney, Australia. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Demographic, health and psychological variables. MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES: Interest in undergoing screening in response to five unspecified scenarios and, elsewhere in our interview, a specified scenario in which PSA screening was mentioned explicitly.
RESULTS: When presented with a scenario describing a lack of evidence underpinning the efficacy of screening for an unspecified cancer, 61.2% of men reported that they 'probably' or 'definitely' wanted to undergo screening for an unspecified cancer. Similar proportions reported that they 'probably' or 'definitely' wanted to undergo screening even at the risk of unmasking indolent cancer (60.9%) or without expert consensus about the value of screening (62.8%). Greatest interest in screening was elicited in that scenario describing life-time risk of dying from prostate cancer (72.6%) (P < 0.001). Significantly fewer indicated they would 'probably' or 'definitely' want to undergo screening for a cancer for which there was uncertainty about treatment efficacy and known side-effects (46.1%) (P < 0.001). Increasing age was a consistent predictor of positive interest in screening. When asked later in our survey specifically about PSA screening, 68.1%'probably' or definitely' wanted PSA screening.
CONCLUSION: Public health policy makers need to ensure that men are provided with the scope of medical evidence germane to prostate cancer screening and treatment, thereby potentially improving prostate cancer screening decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15544681      PMCID: PMC5060252          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00285.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  25 in total

1.  Recommendations on cancer screening in the European union. Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention.

Authors: 
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Medical tests: women's reported and preferred decision-making roles and preferences for information on benefits, side-effects and false results.

Authors:  Heather M Davey; Alexandra L Barratt; Elizabeth Davey; Phyllis N Butow; Sally Redman; Nehmat Houssami; Glenn P Salkeld
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  What patients should be told before agreeing to a blood test that could change their lives.

Authors:  James A Talcott
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association.

Authors:  M J Barry; F J Fowler; M P O'Leary; R C Bruskewitz; H L Holtgrewe; W K Mebust; A T Cockett
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed.

Authors:  D Sarfati; P Howden-Chapman; A Woodward; C Salmond
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography.

Authors:  W Rakowski; M R Andersen; A M Stoddard; N Urban; B K Rimer; D S Lane; S A Fox; M E Costanza
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 4.267

7.  Contentious screening decisions: does the choice matter?

Authors:  S G Pauker; J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  A comparison of two multidimensional health locus of control instruments.

Authors:  G N Marshall; B E Collins; V C Crooks
Journal:  J Pers Assess       Date:  1990

9.  Origins of health locus of control beliefs.

Authors:  R R Lau
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1982-02

10.  Why do men refuse or attend population-based screening for prostate cancer?

Authors:  H G Nijs; M L Essink-Bot; H J DeKoning; W J Kirkels; F H Schröder
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  2000-09
View more
  2 in total

1.  Consistency in attitudes across cancer screenings in medically underserved minority populations.

Authors:  Susan J Shaw; James Vivian; Kathryn M Orzech; Cristina Huebner Torres; Julie Armin
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 2.  Psychological aspects of PSA testing.

Authors:  Riccardo G V Torta; Jacopo Munari
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 14.432

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.