Literature DB >> 17950409

Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review.

Robert J Volk1, Sarah T Hawley, Suzanne Kneuper, E Wayne Holden, Leonardo A Stroud, Crystale Purvis Cooper, Judy M Berkowitz, Lawrence E Scholl, Smita S Saraykar, Valory N Pavlik.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are used to promote informed decision making. This review examines the methods and findings of studies that have evaluated the impact of prostate cancer screening decision aids on patient outcomes.
METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Registry, reference lists, and abstracts from professional meetings were searched through December 2006. Search terms included prostate cancer screening and decision making. Studies were included if a patient education intervention for prostate cancer screening had been evaluated against a control condition.
RESULTS: Eighteen eligible trials, involving 6221 participants, were identified. Sixteen studies enrolled primary care patients, while the remaining two studies were community-based. All the prostate cancer screening decision aids were in English, with varied reading levels. Consistent with previous reviews, the patient decision aids improved patient knowledge and made patients more confident about their decisions. The aids appeared to decrease interest in prostate-specific antigen testing and screening behavior among patients seeking routine care (relative risk [RR]=0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.81-0.97, p=0.008); the aids had no impact on the screening behavior of patients seeking screening services. Additionally, patients who received patient decision aids were more likely to prefer watchful waiting as a treatment option if they were found to have prostate cancer than were controls (RR=1.53, 95% CI=1.31-1.77, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer screening decision aids enhance patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict, and promote greater involvement in decision making. The absence of outcome measures that reflect all elements of informed decision making continues to limit the field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17950409     DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Prev Med        ISSN: 0749-3797            Impact factor:   5.043


  69 in total

1.  Design and evaluation of a decision aid for inviting parents to participate in a fragile X newborn screening pilot study.

Authors:  Donald B Bailey; Megan A Lewis; Shelly L Harris; Tracey Grant; Carla Bann; Ellen Bishop; Myra Roche; Sonia Guarda; Leah Barnum; Cynthia Powell; Bradford L Therrell
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Patient-centered discussions about prostate cancer screening: a real-world approach.

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

3.  Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?: Survey of the Effects of a Community-Based Intervention.

Authors:  Lauren McCormack; Pamela Williams-Piehota; Carla Bann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.

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

5.  Improving the quality of decision-making processes for prostate cancer screening: progress and challenges.

Authors:  Daniel S Reuland; Michael Pignone
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Impact of a printed decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening: a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care.

Authors:  Viet-Thi Tran; Elena Kisseleva-Romanova; Laurent Rigal; Hector Falcoff
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Do Men Receive Information Required for Shared Decision Making About PSA Testing? Results from a National Survey.

Authors:  Bryan Leyva; Alexander Persoskie; Allison Ottenbacher; Jada G Hamilton; Jennifer D Allen; Sarah C Kobrin; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  The development of a web- and a print-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening.

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

9.  Supporting informed decision making online in 20 minutes: an observational web-log study of a PSA test decision aid.

Authors:  Natalie Joseph-Williams; Rhodri Evans; Adrian Edwards; Robert G Newcombe; Patricia Wright; Richard Grol; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Primary care physicians' reported use of pre-screening discussions for prostate cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Suzanne K Linder; Sarah T Hawley; Crystale P Cooper; Lawrence E Scholl; Maria Jibaja-Weiss; Robert J Volk
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.