BACKGROUND: This study was a randomized trial to test the impact of an informed decision-making intervention on prostate cancer screening use. METHODS: The study population included 242 African-American men from three primary care practices who were 40-69 years of age and had no history of prostate cancer. Participants completed a baseline survey questionnaire and were randomly assigned either to a Standard Intervention (SI) group (N=121) or an Enhanced Intervention (EI) group (N=121). An informational booklet was mailed to both groups. EI group men were also offered a screening decision education session. Two outcomes were considered: (1) complete screening (i.e., having a digital rectal exam (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing), and (2) complete or partial screening (i.e., having a PSA test with or without DRE). An endpoint chart audit was performed six months after initial intervention contact. The data were analyzed via exact logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, screening use was low among study participants. EI group men had a screening frequency two times greater than that of SI group men, but the difference was not statistically significant: 8% vs. 4 % (OR = 1.94) fo rcomplete screening, and 19% vs. 10% (OR = 2.08) for complete or partial screening. Multivariable analyses showed that being in the EI group and primary care practice were significant predictors of complete or partial screening (OR = 3.9 and OR = 5.64, respectively). CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer screening use may be influenced by exposure to decision education and the influence of screening-related primary care practice factors.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study was a randomized trial to test the impact of an informed decision-making intervention on prostate cancer screening use. METHODS: The study population included 242 African-American men from three primary care practices who were 40-69 years of age and had no history of prostate cancer. Participants completed a baseline survey questionnaire and were randomly assigned either to a Standard Intervention (SI) group (N=121) or an Enhanced Intervention (EI) group (N=121). An informational booklet was mailed to both groups. EI group men were also offered a screening decision education session. Two outcomes were considered: (1) complete screening (i.e., having a digital rectal exam (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing), and (2) complete or partial screening (i.e., having a PSA test with or without DRE). An endpoint chart audit was performed six months after initial intervention contact. The data were analyzed via exact logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, screening use was low among study participants. EI group men had a screening frequency two times greater than that of SI group men, but the difference was not statistically significant: 8% vs. 4 % (OR = 1.94) fo rcomplete screening, and 19% vs. 10% (OR = 2.08) for complete or partial screening. Multivariable analyses showed that being in the EI group and primary care practice were significant predictors of complete or partial screening (OR = 3.9 and OR = 5.64, respectively). CONCLUSION:Prostate cancer screening use may be influenced by exposure to decision education and the influence of screening-related primary care practice factors.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Thomas A Stamey; Mitchell Caldwell; John E McNeal; Rosalie Nolley; Marci Hemenez; Joshua Downs Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Barak Gaster; Kelly Edwards; Susan Brown Trinidad; Thomas H Gallagher; Clarence H Braddock Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kelly Brittain; Carol Loveland-Cherry; Laurel Northouse; Cleopatra H Caldwell; Jacquelyn Y Taylor Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Stephen J Lepore; Randi L Wolf; Charles E Basch; Melissa Godfrey; Emma McGinty; Celia Shmukler; Ralph Ullman; Nigel Thomas; Sally Weinrich Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2012-12
Authors: Dawood H Sultan; Brian M Rivers; Ben O Osongo; Danyell S Wilson; April Schenck; Rodrigo Carvajal; Desiree Rivers; Richard Roetzheim; B Lee Green Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2014-08
Authors: Young Kyung Do; William R Carpenter; Pamela Spain; Jack A Clark; Robert J Hamilton; Joseph A Galanko; Anne Jackman; James A Talcott; Paul A Godley Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-09-24 Impact factor: 2.506
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: 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