OBJECTIVE: Evaluate a computer-assisted telephone counseling (CATC) decision aid for men considering a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. METHODS: Eligible men were invited by their primary care providers (PCPs) to participate. Those consenting received an educational booklet followed by CATC. The counselor assessed stage of readiness, reviewed booklet information, corrected knowledge deficits and helped with a values clarification exercise. The materials presented advantages and disadvantages of being screened and did not advocate for testing or for not testing. Outcome measures included changes in stage, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, perceived vulnerability and congruence of a PSA testing decision with a pros/cons score. Baseline and final surveys were administered by telephone. RESULTS: There was an increase in PSA knowledge (p<0.001), and in decisional satisfaction (p<0.001), a decrease in decisional conflict (p<0.001), and a general consistency of those decisions with the man's values. Among those initially who had not made a decision, 83.1% made a decision by final survey with decisions equally for or against screening. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention provides realistic, unbiased and effective decision support for men facing a difficult and confusing decision. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our intervention could potentially replace a discussion of PSA testing with the PCP for most men.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate a computer-assisted telephone counseling (CATC) decision aid for men considering a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. METHODS: Eligible men were invited by their primary care providers (PCPs) to participate. Those consenting received an educational booklet followed by CATC. The counselor assessed stage of readiness, reviewed booklet information, corrected knowledge deficits and helped with a values clarification exercise. The materials presented advantages and disadvantages of being screened and did not advocate for testing or for not testing. Outcome measures included changes in stage, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, perceived vulnerability and congruence of a PSA testing decision with a pros/cons score. Baseline and final surveys were administered by telephone. RESULTS: There was an increase in PSA knowledge (p<0.001), and in decisional satisfaction (p<0.001), a decrease in decisional conflict (p<0.001), and a general consistency of those decisions with the man's values. Among those initially who had not made a decision, 83.1% made a decision by final survey with decisions equally for or against screening. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention provides realistic, unbiased and effective decision support for men facing a difficult and confusing decision. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our intervention could potentially replace a discussion of PSA testing with the PCP for most men.
Authors: Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sue Stableford; Angela Fagerlin; John T Wei; Rodney L Dunn; Janet Ohene-Frempong; Karen Kelly-Blake; David R Rovner Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 2.796
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
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Constantine Daskalakis; James Cocroft; Elisabeth J S Kunkel; Ernestine Delmoor; Matthew Liberatore; Robert L Nydick; Earl R Brown; Roy N Gay; Thomas Powell; Roberta Lee Powell Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: A M O'Connor; P Tugwell; G A Wells; T Elmslie; E Jolly; G Hollingworth; R McPherson; E Drake; W Hopman; T Mackenzie Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1998 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Reka Pataky; Roman Gulati; Ruth Etzioni; Peter Black; Kim N Chi; Andrew J Coldman; Tom Pickles; Scott Tyldesley; Stuart Peacock Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Stacy N Davis; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Cathy D Meade; Brian M Rivers; Mitul V Patel; Javier F Torres-Roca; Randy V Heysek; Philippe Spiess; Julio Pow-Sang; Paul B Jacobsen; Clement K Gwede Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Janet Jull; Sascha Köpke; Maureen Smith; Meg Carley; Jeanette Finderup; Anne C Rahn; Laura Boland; Sandra Dunn; Andrew A Dwyer; Jürgen Kasper; Simone Maria Kienlin; France Légaré; Krystina B Lewis; Anne Lyddiatt; Claudia Rutherford; Junqiang Zhao; Tamara Rader; Ian D Graham; Dawn Stacey Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Clement K Gwede; Stacy N Davis; Shaenelle Wilson; Mitul Patel; Susan T Vadaparampil; Cathy D Meade; Brian M Rivers; Daohai Yu; Javier Torres-Roca; Randy Heysek; Philippe E Spiess; Julio Pow-Sang; Paul Jacobsen Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2014-06-26
Authors: LaShanta J Rice; Melanie Jefferson; Vanessa Briggs; Ernestine Delmoor; Jerry C Johnson; Sebastiano Gattoni-Celli; Stephen J Savage; Michael Lilly; Sandip M Prasad; Rick Kittles; Chanita Hughes Halbert Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2017-04-26