Dataset Information

A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening--a qualitative analysis.

ABSTRACT: Cancer screening policies and programmes should take account of public values and concerns. This study sought to determine the priorities, values and concerns of men who were 'fully informed' about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; and empirically examine the value of a community jury in eliciting public values on PSA screening.Community jury was convened on the Gold Coast, Queensland (Australia) to consider PSA screening benefits and harms, and whether government campaigns on PSA screening should be conducted.27 men (volunteers) aged 50-70 with no personal history of prostate cancer and willing to attend jury 6-7 April 2013: 12 were randomly allocated to jury (11 attended).A qualitative analysis was conducted of the jury deliberations (audio-recorded and transcribed) to elicit the jury's views and recommendations. A survey determined the impact of the jury process on participants' individual testing decisions compared with control group.The jury concluded governments should not invest in programmes focused on PSA screening directed at the public because the PSA test did not offer sufficient reassurance or benefit and could raise unnecessary alarm. It recommended an alternative programme to support general practitioners to provide patients with better quality and more consistent information about PSA screening. After the jury, participants were less likely to be tested in the future compared with the controls, but around half said they would still consider doing so.The jury's unanimous verdict about government programmes was notable in the light of their divergent views on whether or not they would be screened themselves in the future. Community juries provide valuable insights into the priorities and concerns of men weighing up the benefits and harms of PSA screening. It will be important to assess the degree to which the findings are generalisable to other settings.

SUBMITTER: Rychetnik L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4010814 | biostudies-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening--a qualitative analysis.

Rychetnik Lucie L Doust Jenny J Thomas Rae R Gardiner Robert R Mackenzie Geraldine G Glasziou Paul P

BMJ open 20140430 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Cancer screening policies and programmes should take account of public values and concerns. This study sought to determine the priorities, values and concerns of men who were 'fully informed' about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; and empirically examine the value of a community jury in eliciting public values on PSA screening.<h4>Setting</h4>Community jury was convened on the Gold Coast, Queensland (Australia) to consider PSA screening benef ...[more]

PMID: 24785399

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer.Data extractionAt least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.ResultsFive randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721?718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively.ConclusionsAt best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.

Dataset Information

A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening--a qualitative analysis.

Publications

A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening--a qualitative analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets