Dataset Information

The COMPASs Study: Community Preferences for Prostate cAncer Screening. Protocol for a quantitative preference study.

ABSTRACT: Background Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. Trade-offs between the potential benefits and downsides of screening must be weighed by men deciding whether to participate in prostate cancer screening; little is known about benefit:harm trade-offs men are willing to accept. Methods/Design The Community Preferences for Prostate Cancer Screening (COMPASs) Study examines Australian men's preferences for prostate cancer screening using PSA testing. The aims are to (1) determine which factors influence men's decision to participate in prostate cancer screening or not and (2) determine the extent of trade-offs between benefits and harms that men are willing to accept in making these decisions. Quantitative methods will be used to assess men's preferences for PSA screening. Using data on the quantitative outcomes of PSA testing from the published literature, a discrete choice study will be designed to quantitatively assess men's preferences. A web-based survey will be conducted in approximately 1000 community respondents aged 40-69 years, stratified by family history of prostate cancer, to assess men's preferences for PSA testing. A mixed logit model will be used; model results will be expressed as parameter estimates (?) and the odds of choosing screening over no screening. Trade-offs between attributes will also be calculated. Ethics and Dissemination The COMPASs study has been approved by the University of Sydney, Human Research Ethics committee (Protocol number 13186). The results will be published in internal reports, in peer-reviewed scientific journals as well as via conference presentations.

SUBMITTER: Howard K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3253419 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The COMPASs Study: Community Preferences for Prostate cAncer Screening. Protocol for a quantitative preference study.

Howard Kirsten K Salkeld Glenn P GP Mann Graham J GJ Patel Manish I MI Cunich Michelle M Pignone Michael P MP

BMJ open 20120107 1

Background Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. Trade-offs between the potential benefits and downsides of screening must be weighed by men deciding whether to participate in prostate cancer screening; little is known about benefit:harm trade-offs men are willing to accept. Methods/Design The Community Preferences for Prostate Cancer Screening (COMPASs) Study examines Australian men's preferences for prostate cancer screening using PSA t ...[more]

PMID: 22226686

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeProstate cancer screening guidelines have changed as new evidence showing an equivocal mortality benefit led many organizations to relax recommendations for this screening and instead suggest shared decision making. Presently, it is unknown how successfully these conversations happen. Our objective was to understand men's communication preferences when they discuss prostate cancer screening.MethodsIn this scoping review, we searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) and the gray literature. Additional studies were obtained from reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles. We included qualitative studies reporting patient perspectives relevant to the research question and published in English. Two independent researchers screened titles and abstracts based on these criteria, conducted a full-text review for final inclusion, evaluated the remaining articles for validity, extracted data, and used thematic analysis to build a thematic framework. A subgroup analysis was performed for Black men as many studies elicited their perspectives.ResultsAnalyses were based on 29 studies. We identified 4 main themes that men described as critical for successful prostate cancer screening risk discussions with their primary care clinician: using everyday language, receiving a sufficient quantity of information, spending enough time, and having a trusting and respectful relationship. Three additional themes emerged that prohibited men from having any discussions at all: having already decided to pursue prostate cancer screening, being passive in medical encounters, and perceiving threat to one's well-being. Black men faced racism, which impacted medical interactions.ConclusionsOur findings point to strategies to support men's communication preferences and address preconceptions surrounding prostate cancer screening. More studies are needed in certain underrepresented populations given the propensity for disparity in health outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.Eligibility criteriaPrimary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.ResultsWe identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.ConclusionThe variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.Trial registration numberCRD42018095585.

Project description:BackgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals’ values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a “person-centered” approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women’s cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women’s cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.Design and methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, “intervention” (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.DiscussionThis review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women’s cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women’s preferences and what is known about women’s cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035737Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dataset Information

The COMPASs Study: Community Preferences for Prostate cAncer Screening. Protocol for a quantitative preference study.

Publications

The COMPASs Study: Community Preferences for Prostate cAncer Screening. Protocol for a quantitative preference study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets