Dataset Information

A comparison of US and Australian men's values and preferences for PSA screening.

ABSTRACT: Patient preferences derived from an assessment of values can help inform the design of screening programs, but how best to do so, and whether such preferences differ cross-nationally, has not been well-examined. The objective of this study was to compare the values and preferences of Australian and US men for PSA (prostate specific antigen) screening.We used an internet based survey of men aged 50-75 with no personal or family history of prostate cancer recruited from on-line panels of a survey research organization in the US and Australia. Participants viewed information on prostate cancer and prostate cancer screening with PSA testing then completed a values clarification task that included information on 4 key attributes: chance of 1) being diagnosed with prostate cancer, 2) dying from prostate cancer, 3) requiring a biopsy as a result of screening, and 4) developing impotence or incontinence as a result of screening. The outcome measures were self reported most important attribute, unlabelled screening test choice, and labelled screening intent, assessed on post-task questionnaires.We enrolled 911 participants (US:456; AU:455), mean age was 59.7; 88.0% were white; 36.4% had completed at least a Bachelors' degree; 42.0% reported a PSA test in the past 12 months. Australian men were more likely to be white and to have had recent screening. For both US and Australian men, the most important attribute was the chance of dying from prostate cancer. Unlabelled post-task preference for the PSA screening-like option was greater for Australian (39.1%) compared to US (26.3%) participants (adjusted OR 1.68 (1.28-2.22)). Labelled intent for screening was high for both countries: US:73.7%, AUS:78.0% (p?=?0.308).There was high intent for PSA screening in both US and Australian men; fewer men in each country chose the PSA-like option on the unlabelled question. Australian men were somewhat more likely to prefer PSA screening. Men in both countries did not view the increased risk of diagnosis as a negative aspect, suggesting more work needs to be done on communicating the concept of overdiagnosis to men facing a PSA screening decision.This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01558583).

SUBMITTER: Howard K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3852221 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of US and Australian men's values and preferences for PSA screening.

Howard Kirsten K Brenner Alison T AT Lewis Carmen C Sheridan Stacey S Crutchfield Trisha T Hawley Sarah S Nielsen Matthew E ME Pignone Michael P MP

BMC health services research 20131005

<h4>Background</h4>Patient preferences derived from an assessment of values can help inform the design of screening programs, but how best to do so, and whether such preferences differ cross-nationally, has not been well-examined. The objective of this study was to compare the values and preferences of Australian and US men for PSA (prostate specific antigen) screening.<h4>Methods</h4>We used an internet based survey of men aged 50-75 with no personal or family history of prostate cancer recruit ...[more]

PMID: 24093428

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) screening for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) may prevent some cancer deaths, but also may miss some cancers or lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment. Therefore, involving patients in decision-making about PSA screening is recommended. However, we know little about the attitude of men regarding participation in decisions about PSA screening and how to assess such attitudes. The purpose of this paper is to describe patient and public participation in the development of a national, web-based case vignette survey for studying men's view on participation in decision-making about PSA screening. METHODS:The project group developed a first draft plan for the survey, its vignettes and choice of measurements. This included multiple vignette variants representing various levels of patient participation in decision-making about PSA screening with different outcomes. Additionally, it included questions on respondents' satisfaction with imagined courses of health care, their propensity to initiate a malpractice complaint, their own health care experiences, socio-demography, personality, and preferences for control regarding health care decision-making. Following feedback from a workshop with academic peers on the draft plan, a group of 30 adult men was engaged to help develop case vignette versions and questionnaire items by providing feedback on structure, comprehension, response patterns, and time required to complete the survey. Furthermore, a panel of three patients with PCa experience was assembled to assist development through a separate review-and-feedback process. RESULTS:Based on reviews of survey drafts, the large group made further suggestions about construction of the survey (e.g. clarification and modification of case vignette versions, deletion of items and adjustment of wording, instructions to guide respondents, replacement of technical terms, and optimization of sequence of survey elements). The patient panel ensured fine-tuning of vignette versions and questionnaire items and helped review the internet version of the survey. CONCLUSIONS:Patient and public involvement during various phases of the survey development helped modify and refine survey structure and content. The survey exemplifies a way to measure health care users' satisfaction with imagined courses of health care and wish to complain, taking into account their characteristics.

Project description:ObjectiveProstate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening.DesignRandom allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment.SettingParticipants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings.ParticipantsTwenty-six men aged 50-70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer.InterventionThe control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions.Main outcome and measuresOur primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer.ResultsAnalyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=-0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001).ConclusionsEvidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.Trial registration numberAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831).

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.

Dataset Information

A comparison of US and Australian men's values and preferences for PSA screening.

Publications

A comparison of US and Australian men's values and preferences for PSA screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets