Mehmet I Gökce1,2, Xuemei Wang3, Jacqueline Frost1, Pamela Roberson1, Robert J Volk4, Durado Brooks5, Steven E Canfield6, Curtis A Pettaway1. 1. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Health Services Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Cancer Control Interventions, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Division of Urology, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends men have the opportunity to make an informed decision about screening for prostate cancer (PCa). The ACS developed a unique decision aid (ACS-DA) for this purpose. However, to date, studies evaluating the efficacy of the ACS-DA are lacking. The authors evaluated the ACS-DA among a cohort of medically underserved men (MUM). METHODS: A multiethnic cohort of MUM (n = 285) was prospectively included between June 2010 and December 2014. The ACS-DA was presented in a group format. Levels of knowledge on PCa were evaluated before and after the presentation. Participants' decisional conflict and thoughts about the presentation also were evaluated. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with having an adequate level of knowledge. RESULTS: Before receiving the ACS-DA, 33.1% of participants had adequate knowledge on PCa, and this increased to 77% after the DA (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, higher education level (odds ratio, 11.19; P = .001) and history of another cancer (odds ratio, 7.45; P = .03) were associated with having adequate knowledge after receiving the DA. Levels of decisional conflict were low and were correlated with levels of knowledge after receiving the DA. The majority of men also rated the presentation as favorable and would recommend the ACS-DA to others. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ACS-DA was feasible among MUM and led to increased PCa knowledge. This also correlated with low levels of decisional conflict. The ACS-DA presented to groups of men may serve as a feasible tool for informed decision making in a MUM population. Cancer 2017;123:583-591.
BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends men have the opportunity to make an informed decision about screening for prostate cancer (PCa). The ACS developed a unique decision aid (ACS-DA) for this purpose. However, to date, studies evaluating the efficacy of the ACS-DA are lacking. The authors evaluated the ACS-DA among a cohort of medically underserved men (MUM). METHODS: A multiethnic cohort of MUM (n = 285) was prospectively included between June 2010 and December 2014. The ACS-DA was presented in a group format. Levels of knowledge on PCa were evaluated before and after the presentation. Participants' decisional conflict and thoughts about the presentation also were evaluated. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with having an adequate level of knowledge. RESULTS: Before receiving the ACS-DA, 33.1% of participants had adequate knowledge on PCa, and this increased to 77% after the DA (P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, higher education level (odds ratio, 11.19; P = .001) and history of another cancer (odds ratio, 7.45; P = .03) were associated with having adequate knowledge after receiving the DA. Levels of decisional conflict were low and were correlated with levels of knowledge after receiving the DA. The majority of men also rated the presentation as favorable and would recommend the ACS-DA to others. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ACS-DA was feasible among MUM and led to increased PCa knowledge. This also correlated with low levels of decisional conflict. The ACS-DA presented to groups of men may serve as a feasible tool for informed decision making in a MUM population. Cancer 2017;123:583-591.
Authors: Kathryn L Taylor; Jackson L Davis; Ralph O Turner; Lenora Johnson; Marc D Schwartz; Jon F Kerner; Chikarlo Leak Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Constantine Daskalakis; Elisabeth J S Kunkel; James R Cocroft; Jeffrey M Riggio; Mark Capkin; Clarence H Braddock Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2010-07-08
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: 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: Adam B Weiner; Kyle P Tsai; Mary-Kate Keeter; David E Victorson; Edward M Schaeffer; William J Catalona; Shilajit D Kundu Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
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