OBJECTIVE: Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer is controversial and informed decision making is recommended. Within two prostate cancer screening programs, we evaluated the impact of a print-based decision aid (DA) on decision-making outcomes. METHODS:Men (N=543) were 54.9 (SD=8.1) years old and 61% were African-American. The 2(booklet type: DA vs. usual care (UC))× 2(delivery mode: Home vs. Clinic) randomized controlled trial assessed decisional and screening outcomes at baseline, 2-months, and 13-months. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat linear regression analyses using generalized estimating equations revealed that DA participants reported improved knowledge relative to UC (B=.41, p<.05). For decisional conflict, per-protocol analyses revealed a group by time interaction (B=-.69, p<.05), indicating that DA participants were less likely to report decisional conflict at 2-months compared to UC participants (OR=.49, 95% CI: .26-.91, p<.05). CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized trial to evaluate a DA in the context of free mass screening, a challenging setting in which to make an informed decision. The DA was highly utilized by participants, improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These results are valuable in understanding ways to improve the decisions of men who seek screening and can be easily implemented within many settings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer is controversial and informed decision making is recommended. Within two prostate cancer screening programs, we evaluated the impact of a print-based decision aid (DA) on decision-making outcomes. METHODS:Men (N=543) were 54.9 (SD=8.1) years old and 61% were African-American. The 2(booklet type: DA vs. usual care (UC))× 2(delivery mode: Home vs. Clinic) randomized controlled trial assessed decisional and screening outcomes at baseline, 2-months, and 13-months. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat linear regression analyses using generalized estimating equations revealed that DA participants reported improved knowledge relative to UC (B=.41, p<.05). For decisional conflict, per-protocol analyses revealed a group by time interaction (B=-.69, p<.05), indicating that DA participants were less likely to report decisional conflict at 2-months compared to UC participants (OR=.49, 95% CI: .26-.91, p<.05). CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized trial to evaluate a DA in the context of free mass screening, a challenging setting in which to make an informed decision. The DA was highly utilized by participants, improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These results are valuable in understanding ways to improve the decisions of men who seek screening and can be easily implemented within many settings.
Authors: Stephanie K Rubel; Jacqueline W Miller; Robert L Stephens; Ye Xu; Lawrence E Scholl; E Wayne Holden; Leonardo A Stroud; Robert J Volk Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2010-04
Authors: Evelyn C Y Chan; Stephanie L McFall; Theresa L Byrd; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Robert J Volk; John Ureda; Jessica Calderon-Mora; Pat Morales; Adriana Valdes; L Kay Bartholomew Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-01-14
Authors: Jennifer D Allen; Megan K D Othus; Alton Hart; Laura Tom; Yi Li; Donna Berry; Deborah Bowen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Rhodri Evans; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Adrian Edwards; Robert G Newcombe; Patricia Wright; Paul Kinnersley; Jeff Griffiths; Mari Jones; Janet Williams; Richard Grol; Glyn Elwyn Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Robert J Volk; Maria L Jibaja-Weiss; Sarah T Hawley; Suzanne Kneuper; Stephen J Spann; Brian J Miles; David J Hyman Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-29
Authors: Mary Ann O'Brien; Timothy J Whelan; Miguel Villasis-Keever; Amiram Gafni; Cathy Charles; Robin Roberts; Susan Schiff; Wenjie Cai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joel E Pacyna; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Sarah M Jenkins; Erica J Sutton; Caroline Horrow; Iftikhar J Kullo; Richard R Sharp Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2018-12-22 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Catherine Tomko; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Alexander H Krist; Steven H Woolf; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mehmet I Gökce; Xuemei Wang; Jacqueline Frost; Pamela Roberson; Robert J Volk; Durado Brooks; Steven E Canfield; Curtis A Pettaway Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stephen J Lepore; Rasmi G Nair; Stacy N Davis; Randi L Wolf; Charles E Basch; Nigel Thomas; Celia Shmukler; Ralph Ullman Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2017-12
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: Kathryn L Taylor; Richard M Hoffman; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Amethyst Leimpeter; Tania Lobo; Scott P Kelly; Jun Shan; David Aaronson; Catherine A Tomko; Amy J Starosta; Charlotte J Hagerman; Stephen K Van Den Eeden Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Beth N Peshkin; Mary Kate Ladd; Claudine Isaacs; Hannah Segal; Aryana Jacobs; Kathryn L Taylor; Kristi D Graves; Suzanne C O'Neill; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 2.037