OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a decision aid (DA) designed to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Twelve work sites were randomly assigned to an intervention or nonintervention comparison condition. Intervention sites received access to a computer-tailored DA at the workplace. Male employees age 45 years and above (n = 625) completed surveys at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, documenting aspects of informed decision making. RESULTS: Using an intention-to-treat analysis, men in the intervention group were significantly more likely to have made a screening decision and to have improved knowledge without increased decisional conflict, relative to men in the comparison group. These changes were observed despite the fact that only 30% of men in intervention sites used the DA. Among DA users, similar improvements were observed, although the magnitudes of changes were substantially greater, and significant improvements in decision self-efficacy were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A DA offered in the workplace promoted decision making, improved knowledge, and increased decision self-efficacy among users, without increasing decisional conflict. However, participation was suboptimal, suggesting that better methods for engaging men in workplace interventions are needed. IMPACT STATEMENT: This trial shows the efficacy of a computer-tailored DA in promoting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening. The DA was delivered through work sites, thereby providing access to resources required to participate in informed decision making without requiring a medical appointment. However, participation rates were suboptimal, and additional strategies for engaging men are needed. (c)2010 AACR.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a decision aid (DA) designed to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Twelve work sites were randomly assigned to an intervention or nonintervention comparison condition. Intervention sites received access to a computer-tailored DA at the workplace. Male employees age 45 years and above (n = 625) completed surveys at baseline and at 3-month follow-up, documenting aspects of informed decision making. RESULTS: Using an intention-to-treat analysis, men in the intervention group were significantly more likely to have made a screening decision and to have improved knowledge without increased decisional conflict, relative to men in the comparison group. These changes were observed despite the fact that only 30% of men in intervention sites used the DA. Among DA users, similar improvements were observed, although the magnitudes of changes were substantially greater, and significant improvements in decision self-efficacy were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A DA offered in the workplace promoted decision making, improved knowledge, and increased decision self-efficacy among users, without increasing decisional conflict. However, participation was suboptimal, suggesting that better methods for engaging men in workplace interventions are needed. IMPACT STATEMENT: This trial shows the efficacy of a computer-tailored DA in promoting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening. The DA was delivered through work sites, thereby providing access to resources required to participate in informed decision making without requiring a medical appointment. However, participation rates were suboptimal, and additional strategies for engaging men are needed. (c)2010 AACR.
Authors: Patricia Dolan Mullen; Jennifer Dacey Allen; Karen Glanz; Maria E Fernandez; Deborah J Bowen; Sandi L Pruitt; Beth A Glenn; Michael Pignone Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2006-12
Authors: Melissa R Partin; David Nelson; David Radosevich; Sean Nugent; Ann B Flood; Nancy Dillon; Jeremy Holtzman; Michele Haas; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Donna L Berry; Barbara Halpenny; Fangxin Hong; Seth Wolpin; William B Lober; Kenneth J Russell; William J Ellis; Usha Govindarajulu; Jaclyn Bosco; B Joyce Davison; Gerald Bennett; Martha K Terris; Andrea Barsevick; Daniel W Lin; Claire C Yang; Greg Swanson Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Catherine Tomko; Kimberly Davis; Samantha Ludin; Scott Kelly; Aaron Stern; George Luta; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Alfred C Marcus; Michael A Diefenbach; Annette L Stanton; Suzanne M Miller; Linda Fleisher; Peter C Raich; Marion E Morra; Rosemarie Slevin Perocchia; Zung Vu Tran; Mary Anne Bright Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2013-02-28
Authors: Joseph D Tariman; Ardith Doorenbos; Karen G Schepp; Seema Singhal; Donna L Berry Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 2.172
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
Authors: Masahito Jimbo; Gurpreet K Rana; Sarah Hawley; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Donald E Nease; Mack T Ruffin Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 508.702