Dragan Ilic1, Walid Jammal2,3, Pauline Chiarelli4, Robert A Gardiner5,6,7, Suzanne Hughes8, Dana Stefanovic9, Suzanne K Chambers6,10,11,12,13. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Western Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 4. Faculty of Health and Medicine, School of Health Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 5. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 6. UQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 7. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia. 8. Cancer Council Australia and Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. 9. Clinical Guidelines Network, Cancer Council Australia, Sydney, Australia. 10. Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. 11. Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 12. Health and Wellness Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia. 13. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a leading disease affecting men worldwide. Conflicting evidence within the literature provides little guidance to men contemplating whether or not to be screened for prostate cancer. This systematic review aimed to determine whether decision aids about early detection of prostate cancer improve patient knowledge and decision making about whether to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases up until March 2014 were searched. All included randomised controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Clinical selection and assessment heterogeneity among studies prevented the pooling of data for meta-analyses. Descriptive analyses of all included studies and comparison were performed. RESULTS: A total of 13 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Significant heterogeneity was present for the design and implementation of decision aids including comparative interventions and outcomes. Eight studies were of a low methodological quality, with the remaining five of medium quality. Improvements in patient knowledge following use of a decision aid were demonstrated by 11 of the 13 included studies. Seven of 10 studies demonstrated a reduction in decisional conflict/distress. Three of four studies demonstrated no difference between a decision aid and information only in reducing decisional uncertainty. Three of five studies demonstrated an increase in decisional satisfaction with use of a decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids increase patient knowledge and confidence in decision making about prostate cancer testing. Further research into effective methods of implementation is needed.
BACKGROUND:Prostate cancer is a leading disease affecting men worldwide. Conflicting evidence within the literature provides little guidance to men contemplating whether or not to be screened for prostate cancer. This systematic review aimed to determine whether decision aids about early detection of prostate cancer improve patient knowledge and decision making about whether to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases up until March 2014 were searched. All included randomised controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Clinical selection and assessment heterogeneity among studies prevented the pooling of data for meta-analyses. Descriptive analyses of all included studies and comparison were performed. RESULTS: A total of 13 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Significant heterogeneity was present for the design and implementation of decision aids including comparative interventions and outcomes. Eight studies were of a low methodological quality, with the remaining five of medium quality. Improvements in patient knowledge following use of a decision aid were demonstrated by 11 of the 13 included studies. Seven of 10 studies demonstrated a reduction in decisional conflict/distress. Three of four studies demonstrated no difference between a decision aid and information only in reducing decisional uncertainty. Three of five studies demonstrated an increase in decisional satisfaction with use of a decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids increase patient knowledge and confidence in decision making about prostate cancer testing. Further research into effective methods of implementation is needed.
Authors: Ainsley Elizabeth Moore; Sharon E Straus; Danielle Kasperavicius; Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Guylène Thériault; Brett D Thombs; Heather Colquhoun Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Ainsley Elizabeth Moore; Sharon E Straus; Danielle Kasperavicius; Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Guylène Thériault; Brett D Thombs; Heather Colquhoun Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Jon C Tilburt; David Zahrieh; Joel E Pacyna; Daniel G Petereit; Judith S Kaur; Bruce D Rapkin; Robert L Grubb; George J Chang; Michael J Morris; Evan Z Kovac; Kara N Babaian; Jeff A Sloan; Ethan M Basch; Elizabeth S Peil; Amylou C Dueck; Paul J Novotny; Electra D Paskett; Jan C Buckner; Daniel D Joyce; Victor M Montori; Dominick L Frosch; Robert J Volk; Simon P Kim Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Sun Hee Rim; Ingrid J Hall; Greta M Massetti; Cheryll C Thomas; Jun Li; Lisa C Richardson Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Yew Kong Lee; Ping Yein Lee; Ai Theng Cheong; Chirk Jenn Ng; Khatijah Lim Abdullah; Teng Aik Ong; Azad Hassan Abdul Razack Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 3.240