Baseline Attitudes About Prostate Cancer Screening Moderate the Impact of Decision Aids on Screening Rates.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Starosta AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4959888 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Baseline Attitudes About Prostate Cancer Screening Moderate the Impact of Decision Aids on Screening Rates.
Starosta Amy J AJ Luta George G Luta George G Tomko Catherine A CA Schwartz Marc D MD Taylor Kathryn L KL
Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 20151001 5
<h4>Background</h4>The impact of decision aids on prostate cancer screening outcomes has been inconsistent.<h4>Purpose</h4>We assessed whether pre-existing attitudes moderated the impact of decision aids on screening.<h4>Methods</h4>Men aged 45-70 (56.2% Caucasian, 39.9% African-American) were randomly assigned to a print decision aid (N = 630), a web decision aid (N = 631), or usual care (N = 632). Telephone interviews assessed pro/con screening attitudes and screening behaviors at baseline, 1- ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ContextAlthough 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 acquisitionData 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 synthesisEighteen 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%).ConclusionsIntegration 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.
| S-EPMC6467088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the mixed messages communicated to the public about screening effectiveness make it critical to assist men in making informed decisions.To assess the effectiveness of 2 decision aids in helping men make informed PCa screening decisions.A racially diverse group of male outpatients aged 45 to 70 years from 3 sites were interviewed by telephone at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months, from 2007 through 2011. We conducted intention-to-treat univariate analyses and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses, adjusting for baseline outcome measures.Random assignment to print-based decision aid (n?=?628), web-based interactive decision aid (n?=?625), or usual care (UC) (n?=?626).Prostate cancer knowledge, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and whether participants underwent PCa screening.Of 4794 eligible men approached, 1893 were randomized. At each follow-up assessment, univariate and multivariable analyses indicated that both decision aids resulted in significantly improved PCa knowledge and reduced decisional conflict compared with UC (all P <.001). At 1 month, the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) in knowledge for the web group vs UC was 0.74, and in the print group vs UC, 0.73. Decisional conflict was significantly lower for web vs UC (d?=?0.33) and print vs UC (d?=?0.36). At 13 months, these differences were smaller but remained significant. At 1 month, high satisfaction was reported by significantly more print (60.4%) than web participants (52.2%; P?=?.009) and significantly more web (P?=?.001) and print (P?=?.03) than UC participants (45.5%). At 13 months, differences in the proportion reporting high satisfaction among print (55.7%) compared with UC (49.8%; P?=?.06) and web participants (50.4%; P?=?.10) were not significant. Screening rates at 13 months did not differ significantly among groups.Both decision aids improved participants’ informed decision making about PCa screening up to 13 months later but did not affect actual screening rates. Dissemination of these decision aids may be a valuable public health tool.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196807.
| S-EPMC3992617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceUS guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening.ObjectiveTo estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018.Study selectionRandomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence.Main outcomes and measuresKnowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice.ResultsOf 19 eligible trials (12 781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I2 = 67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I2 = 75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I2 = 60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I2 = 36%; low quality).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter.
| S-EPMC6593633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening on a scale of 1-unlikely to 100-extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with prostate cancer screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions. RESULTS:Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50% were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening decreased from 83 to 78 following decision aid exposure (p <0.001). Reviewing the decision aid from the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Family Physicians did not alter the likelihood (each p >0.2). However, the decision aid from the United States Preventive Services Task Force was associated with the largest decrease in screening preference (-16.0, p <0.001). Participants reported increased comfort (from 3.5 to 4.1 of 5) with the decision making process of prostate cancer screening following exposure to a decision aid (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Exposure to a decision aid decreased the participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening and increased comfort with the screening process.
| S-EPMC6203648 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.
| S-EPMC8655570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Australian clinicians are advised to 'offer evidence-based decisional support to men considering whether or not to have a PSA test'. This randomised trial compared the performance and acceptability of two new decision aids (DAs) to aid men in making informed choices about PSA screening. METHODS:~3000 Australian men 45-60 years with varying educational attainment were recruited via an online panel and randomised to view one of two online decision aids (one full length, one abbreviated) and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was informed choice about PSA screening. FINDINGS:Significantly more men in the long DA group (38%) made an informed choice than men who received the shorter DA (33%) (95% CI 1.1% to 8.2%; p = 0.008). On knowledge, the long DA group scored, on average, 0.45 points higher than the short DA group (95% CI 0.14 to 0.76; p = 0.004) and 5% more of the participants achieved an adequate knowledge score (95% CI 1.9% to 8.8%; p = 0.002). Men allocated the long DA were less likely to intend to have a PSA test in the future (53%) than men in the short DA group (59%). Both DAs rated highly on acceptability. CONCLUSIONS:Both DAs were useful and acceptable to men regardless of education level and both supported informed decision making. The long version resulted in higher knowledge, and a higher proportion of men able to make an informed choice, but the differences were small. Long DAs may be useful for men whose informational needs are not satisfied by a short DA.
| S-EPMC6961909 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8164691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DAs affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient-provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a complex medical oriented DA compared to a more simplistic decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.Methods1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a simple or complex DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and who completed a baseline survey. Survey measures: baseline (biopsy); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (pre- encounter); one week following the physician visit (post-encounter). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients' use and satisfaction with the DA.ResultsParticipants who received the simple DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p = 0.03), found the DA more helpful (p's < 0.01) and were more likely to be considering watchful waiting (p = 0.03) compared to those receiving the complex DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received.ConclusionsThe simple DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients' treatment preferences. Trial registration This trial was pre-registered prior to recruitment of participants.
| S-EPMC8117645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate (n = 36), breast (n = 26), lung (n = 10), colorectal (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term "overdiagnosis," and 13 (15.3%) used "overtreatment." PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening (n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs.
| S-EPMC8855414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextDecision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake.Evidence acquisitionSources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015.Evidence synthesisTwenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior.ConclusionsDecision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.
| S-EPMC5067222 | biostudies-literature