Literature DB >> 8803740

The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team.

A B Flood1, J E Wennberg, R F Nease, F J Fowler, J Ding, L M Hynes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Routine screening for prostate cancer is controversial because of frequent false-positive results, the potential for slow, non-life-threatening growth of untreated cancer, the uncertainty regarding whether treatment can extend life, and the potential for treatment complications. This study examines how information about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and the uncertain benefits of treating prostate cancer affects patients' desire for PSA testing.
DESIGN: An educational videotape designed to inform men about the uncertainty surrounding PSA screening and the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer was presented to two groups of male patients 50 years of age or older.
SETTING: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: For study 1, men seeking a free prostate cancer screening were preassigned to view the educational videotape (N = 184) or another videotape (N = 185). For study 2, men scheduled to visit a general internal medicine clinic viewed either the educational videotape (N = 103) or no videotape (N = 93).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The men's information and preferences about prostate cancer screening and treatment and actual choice of PSA test at the next test opportunity were measured. Men who viewed the educational videotape were: better informed about PSA tests, prostate cancer, and its treatment; preferred no active treatment if cancer were found; and preferred not to be screened (all significant at p < or = .002 in both studies). Men viewing the educational video were less likely to have a PSA test (p = .041, study 2). This tendency was not significant at the free-PSA clinic (p = .079).
CONCLUSIONS: Preference regarding cancer screening and treatment is greatly affected by information about medical uncertainties. Because informed patient choices vary. PSA screening decisions should incorporate individual preferences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8803740     DOI: 10.1007/bf02600045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  19 in total

1.  Screening for prostate cancer: commentary on the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1994 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions.

Authors:  J P Kassirer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-06-30       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Observations on the doubling time of prostate cancer. The use of serial prostate-specific antigen in patients with untreated disease as a measure of increasing cancer volume.

Authors:  H P Schmid; J E McNeal; T A Stamey
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1993-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Prostate cancer screening: what we know and what we need to know.

Authors:  B S Kramer; M L Brown; P C Prorok; A L Potosky; J K Gohagan
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-11-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988-1990 (updated June 1993).

Authors:  F J Fowler; M J Barry; G Lu-Yao; A Roman; J Wasson; J E Wennberg
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Serum prostate-specific antigen discriminates weakly between men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and patients with organ-confined prostate cancer.

Authors:  P D Sershon; M J Barry; J E Oesterling
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Prostate specific antigen cannot distinguish stage T1a (A1) prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  J M Monda; M J Barry; J E Oesterling
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men.

Authors:  William J Catalona; Jerome P Richie; Frederick R Ahmann; M'Liss A Hudson; Peter T Scardino; Robert C Flanigan; Jean B DeKernion; Timothy L Ratliff; Louis R Kavoussi; Bruce L Dalkin; W Bedford Waters; Michael T MacFarlane; Paula C Southwick
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 9.  A structured literature review of treatment for localized prostate cancer. Prostate Disease Patient Outcome Research Team.

Authors:  J H Wasson; C C Cushman; R C Bruskewitz; B Littenberg; A G Mulley; J E Wennberg
Journal:  Arch Fam Med       Date:  1993-05

10.  A comparison of transurethral surgery with watchful waiting for moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Transurethral Resection of the Prostate.

Authors:  J H Wasson; D J Reda; R C Bruskewitz; J Elinson; A M Keller; W G Henderson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-01-12       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  62 in total

1.  Expectations of health care: promoted, managed or shared?

Authors:  Julian Tudor Hart
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Tell it like it is: patients as partners in medical decision making.

Authors:  R A Deyo
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Cancer screening in primary care. Are we communicating?

Authors:  M Pignone
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Screening for prostate cancer in the UK. Seems to be creeping in by the back door.

Authors:  J L Donovan; S J Frankel; D E Neal; F C Hamdy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-10-06

Review 5.  Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review.

Authors:  R G Jepson; C A Forbes; A J Sowden; R A Lewis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 6.  The potential contribution of decision aids to screening programmes.

Authors:  V Entwistle
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Prostate cancer and race: variation in diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Steven J Bernstein
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; Ann Louise Kinmonth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-07-13

9.  Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sunil Kripalani; Jyoti Sharma; Elizabeth Justice; Jeb Justice; Cynthia Spiker; Larry E Laufman; Megan Price; Armin D Weinberg; Terry A Jacobson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Understanding adherence to official guidelines on statin prescribing in primary health care--a multi-level methodological approach.

Authors:  H Ohlsson; U Lindblad; T Lithman; B Ericsson; U-G Gerdtham; A Melander; L Råstam; J Merlo
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.