Kirsten Howard1, Glenn P Salkeld1, Manish I Patel2, Graham J Mann3, Michael P Pignone4. 1. Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Discipline of Surgery, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney at Westmead Millennium Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, NSW, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial. In deciding about screening, men must weigh the benefits and harms: little is known about benefit: harm trade-offs men are willing to accept. The objective of this study was to assess men's preferences for PSA screening, and the trade-offs between benefits and harms men are willing to accept when deciding about screening. METHODS: Preferences of 662 men aged 40-69 were assessed using a discrete choice experiment. PSA screening was described by six attributes: prostate cancer deaths, prostate cancer diagnoses, unnecessary biopsies from false-positive PSA tests, impotence, urinary incontinence/bowel problems and cost. A mixed logit model was used to examine the influence of attributes on men's preferences for PSA testing; benefit: harm trade-offs were also calculated. RESULTS: Men's preferences were significantly influenced by test characteristics, particularly potential mortality benefit, unnecessary biopsies and likelihood of urinary incontinence or bowel problems; preferences were also influenced by age, prior PSA testing experience and perceived risk of prostate cancer. Men were willing to accept between 65 and 233 of 10 000 extra men with unnecessary biopsies, and between 31 and 72 of 10 000 extra men with incontinence/bowel problems to avoid one prostate cancer death. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in valuations of attributes and trade-offs acceptable to men of different ages suggest a one size fits all approach to PSA testing, regardless of age, may not reflect men's preferences. Our results can be used by policymakers to ensure screening programmes are in line with men's preferences and by clinicians and patients to facilitate informed discussions of the most relevant benefits and downsides of PSA screening for an individual man.
OBJECTIVES:Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial. In deciding about screening, men must weigh the benefits and harms: little is known about benefit: harm trade-offs men are willing to accept. The objective of this study was to assess men's preferences for PSA screening, and the trade-offs between benefits and harms men are willing to accept when deciding about screening. METHODS: Preferences of 662 men aged 40-69 were assessed using a discrete choice experiment. PSA screening was described by six attributes: prostate cancer deaths, prostate cancer diagnoses, unnecessary biopsies from false-positive PSA tests, impotence, urinary incontinence/bowel problems and cost. A mixed logit model was used to examine the influence of attributes on men's preferences for PSA testing; benefit: harm trade-offs were also calculated. RESULTS:Men's preferences were significantly influenced by test characteristics, particularly potential mortality benefit, unnecessary biopsies and likelihood of urinary incontinence or bowel problems; preferences were also influenced by age, prior PSA testing experience and perceived risk of prostate cancer. Men were willing to accept between 65 and 233 of 10 000 extra men with unnecessary biopsies, and between 31 and 72 of 10 000 extra men with incontinence/bowel problems to avoid one prostate cancer death. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in valuations of attributes and trade-offs acceptable to men of different ages suggest a one size fits all approach to PSA testing, regardless of age, may not reflect men's preferences. Our results can be used by policymakers to ensure screening programmes are in line with men's preferences and by clinicians and patients to facilitate informed discussions of the most relevant benefits and downsides of PSA screening for an individual man.
Authors: John F P Bridges; A Brett Hauber; Deborah Marshall; Andrew Lloyd; Lisa A Prosser; Dean A Regier; F Reed Johnson; Josephine Mauskopf Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
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: Robert J Volk; 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 Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Kirsten Howard; Glenn P Salkeld; Graham J Mann; Manish I Patel; Michelle Cunich; Michael P Pignone Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-01-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David P Smith; Madeleine T King; Sam Egger; Martin P Berry; Phillip D Stricker; Paul Cozzi; Jeanette Ward; Dianne L O'Connell; Bruce K Armstrong Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-11-27
Authors: Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia Boyd; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Nancy L Schoenborn Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Nancy L Schoenborn; Norah L Crossnohere; Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia M Boyd; Antonio C Wolff; Qian-Li Xue; Jacqueline Massare; Marcela Blinka; John F P Bridges Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Suzana Karim; Benjamin M Craig; Caroline Vass; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 4.558
Authors: Laura J James; Germaine Wong; Jonathan C Craig; Camilla S Hanson; Angela Ju; Kirsten Howard; Tim Usherwood; Howard Lau; Allison Tong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Robin W M Vernooij; Lyubov Lytvyn; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Loai Albarqouni; Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Karen Campbell; Thomas Agoritsas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 2.692