PURPOSE:Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a controversial issue. The present study aimed to explore physician behaviors during an unannounced standardized patient encounter that was part of a randomized controlled trial to educate physicians using a prostate cancer screening, interactive, Web-based module. METHODS:Participants included 118 internal medicine and family medicine physicians from 5 health systems in California, in 2007-2008. Control physicians received usual education about prostate cancer screening (brochures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Intervention physicians participated in the prostate cancer screening module. Within 3 months, all physicians saw unannounced standardized patients who prompted prostate cancer screening discussions in clinic. The encounter was audio-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Authors analyzed physician behaviors around screening: (1) engagement after prompting, (2) degree of shared decision making, and (3) final recommendations for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: After prompting, 90% of physicians discussed prostate cancer screening. In comparison with control physicians, intervention physicians showed somewhat more shared decision making behaviors (intervention 14 items vs control 11 items, P <.05), were more likely to mention no screening as an option (intervention 63% vs control 26%, P <.05), to encourage patients to consider different screening options (intervention 62% vs control 39%, P <.05) and seeking input from others (intervention 25% vs control 7%, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A brief Web-based interactive educational intervention can improve shared decision making, neutrality in recommendation, and reduce PSA test ordering. Engaging patients in discussion of the uses and limitations of tests with uncertain value can decrease utilization of the tests.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a controversial issue. The present study aimed to explore physician behaviors during an unannounced standardized patient encounter that was part of a randomized controlled trial to educate physicians using a prostate cancer screening, interactive, Web-based module. METHODS:Participants included 118 internal medicine and family medicine physicians from 5 health systems in California, in 2007-2008. Control physicians received usual education about prostate cancer screening (brochures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Intervention physicians participated in the prostate cancer screening module. Within 3 months, all physicians saw unannounced standardized patients who prompted prostate cancer screening discussions in clinic. The encounter was audio-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Authors analyzed physician behaviors around screening: (1) engagement after prompting, (2) degree of shared decision making, and (3) final recommendations for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: After prompting, 90% of physicians discussed prostate cancer screening. In comparison with control physicians, intervention physicians showed somewhat more shared decision making behaviors (intervention 14 items vs control 11 items, P <.05), were more likely to mention no screening as an option (intervention 63% vs control 26%, P <.05), to encourage patients to consider different screening options (intervention 62% vs control 39%, P <.05) and seeking input from others (intervention 25% vs control 7%, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A brief Web-based interactive educational intervention can improve shared decision making, neutrality in recommendation, and reduce PSA test ordering. Engaging patients in discussion of the uses and limitations of tests with uncertain value can decrease utilization of the tests.
Entities:
Keywords:
health communication; medical education; patient-centered care; primary care; prostate cancer; prostate cancer screening; qualitative analysis; randomized controlled trial; risk-benefit assessment; shared decision making; unannounced standardized patients
Authors: Michele Heisler; Reynard R Bouknight; Rodney A Hayward; Dylan M Smith; Eve A Kerr Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stacey A Fedewa; Ted Gansler; Robert Smith; Ann Goding Sauer; Richard Wender; Otis W Brawley; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.166
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
Authors: Soumitra S Bhuyan; Aastha Chandak; Niodita Gupta; Sudhir Isharwal; Chad LaGrange; Asos Mahmood; Dan Gentry Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2016-07-07
Authors: France Légaré; Rhéda Adekpedjou; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-19
Authors: A Taylor Kelley; Marcela C Smid; Jacob D Baylis; Elizabeth Charron; Amy E Binns-Calvey; Shayla Archer; Saul J Weiner; Lori Jo Begaye; Gerald Cochran Journal: Addict Sci Clin Pract Date: 2021-06-25