Literature DB >> 28832310

A decision aid versus shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: results of a randomized, controlled trial.

Andrew W Stamm1, John S Banerji, Erika M Wolff, April Slee, Sydney Akapame, Kathryn Dahl, John D Massman I I I, Michael C Soung, Kim R Pittenger, John M Corman.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) is widely encouraged by both the American Urological Association and Choosing Wisely for prostate cancer screening. Implementation of SDM is challenging secondary to time constraints and competing patient priorities. One strategy to mitigate the difficulties in implementing SDM is to utilize a decision aid (DA). Here we evaluate whether a DA improves a patient's prostate cancer knowledge and affects prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to usual care (UC), DA, or DA + SDM. Perception of quality of care was measured using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Outcomes were stratified by long term provider relationship (LTPR, > 3 years) versus short term provider relationship (STPR, < 3 years). Knowledge of prostate cancer screening and the decision regarding screening were assessed. Groups were compared using ANOVA and logistic regression models.
RESULTS: A total of 329 patients were randomized. Patients in the DA + SDM arm were significantly more likely to report discussing the implication of screening (33% DA + SDM, 22% UC, 16% DA, p = 0.0292) and answered significantly more knowledge questions correctly compared to the UC arm (5.03 versus 4.46, p = 0.046). However, those in the DA arm were significantly less likely to report that they always felt encouraged to discuss all health concerns (72% DA, 78% DA + SDM, 87% UC, p = 0.0285). Interestingly, STPR patients in the DA arm were significantly more likely to undergo PSA-based prostate cancer screening (41%) than the UC arm (8%, p = 0.019). This effect was not observed in the LTPR group.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing patients a DA without a personal interaction resulted in a greater chance of undergoing PSA-based screening without improving knowledge about screening or understanding of the consequences of this decision. This effect was exacerbated by a shorter term provider relationship. With complex issues such as the decision to pursue PSA-based prostate cancer screening, tools cannot substitute for direct interaction with a trusted provider.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28832310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Urol        ISSN: 1195-9479            Impact factor:   1.344


  4 in total

1.  The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Betsy Q Cliff; Anton L V Avanceña; Richard A Hirth; Shoou-Yih Daniel Lee
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2021-08-17       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Primary Care Providers' Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening.

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

3.  Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ilya Ivlev; Silvie Jerabkova; Meenakshi Mishra; Lily A Cook; Karen B Eden
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care.

Authors:  Anita D Misra-Hebert; Grant Hom; Eric A Klein; Janine M Bauman; Niyati Gupta; Xinge Ji; Andrew J Stephenson; J Stephen Jones; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 6.244

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.