Ilya Ivlev1, Silvie Jerabkova2, Meenakshi Mishra3, Lily A Cook3, Karen B Eden4. 1. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: ivlev@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Corporate Finance, University of Economics, Prague, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 4. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I2=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.
CONTEXT: Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I2=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.
Authors: John E Cornell; Cynthia D Mulrow; Russell Localio; Catharine B Stack; Anne R Meibohm; Eliseo Guallar; Steven N Goodman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Melissa R Partin; David Nelson; Ann Barry Flood; Greta Friedemann-Sánchez; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Health Expect Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Andrew W Stamm; 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 Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Stanley K Frencher; Arun K Sharma; Senait Teklehaimanot; Dennis Wadzani; Ijeoma E Ike; Alton Hart; Keith Norris Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Robert A Smith; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley; Richard C Wender Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ana Maria Lopez; Lauren Hudson; Nathan L Vanderford; Robin Vanderpool; Jennifer Griggs; Mara Schonberg Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2019-05-17
Authors: Sudhir Srivastava; Eugene J Koay; Alexander D Borowsky; Angelo M De Marzo; Sharmistha Ghosh; Paul D Wagner; Barnett S Kramer Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Mark Lown; Christopher R Wilcox; Stephanie Hughes; Miriam Santer; George Lewith; Michael Moore; Paul Little Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 2.692