Dataset Information

Prostate cancer survivors' beliefs about screening and treatment decision-making experiences in an era of controversy.

ABSTRACT: Controversy about the costs and benefits of screening and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) has recently intensified. However, the impact of the debate on PCa patients has not been systematically studied.We assessed knowledge of, and attitudes toward, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's (USPSTF) May 2012 recommendation against PSA-based screening among men diagnosed with clinically localized PCa, and tested whether exposure to the recommendation and associated controversy about overtreatment of PCa predicted treatment decisional conflict, affected treatment choice, or increased regret about PSA testing.Accurate knowledge of the USPSTF recommendation was uncommon (19.1%). Attitudes toward the recommendation were negative, and the vast majority (86.5%) remained highly supportive of annual PSA testing in men ?50. Although exposure to the recommendation and controversy about treatment was associated with lower enthusiasm for screening and treatment, it was not associated with treatment decisions, or greater decisional-conflict, or regret.Findings may alleviate concern that exposure to PSA-based screening and overtreatment controversies has adversely affected recent cohorts of PCa patients. However, patients remain highly supportive of PSA-based screening. As survivor anecdotes often influence people's medical decisions, it is important to appreciate the scale of opposition to the new recommendation.

SUBMITTER: Orom H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5514549 | biostudies-other | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prostate cancer survivors' beliefs about screening and treatment decision-making experiences in an era of controversy.

Orom Heather H Underwood Willie W Homish D Lynn DL Kiviniemi Marc T MT Homish Gregory G GG Nelson Christian J CJ Schiffman Zvi Z

Psycho-oncology 20141110 9

<h4>Objective</h4>Controversy about the costs and benefits of screening and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) has recently intensified. However, the impact of the debate on PCa patients has not been systematically studied.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed knowledge of, and attitudes toward, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's (USPSTF) May 2012 recommendation against PSA-based screening among men diagnosed with clinically localized PCa, and tested whether exposure to the recommendation and assoc ...[more]

PMID: 25382436

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundEffective management of metastatic disease requires multidisciplinary input and entails high risk of disease-related and treatment-related morbidity and mortality. The factors that influence clinician decision-making around spinal metastases are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study that included a multidisciplinary cohort of physicians to evaluate the decision-making process for treatment of spinal metastases from the clinician's perspective.MethodsWe recruited operative and nonoperative clinicians, including orthopaedic spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and physiatrists, from across North America to participate in either a focus group or a semistructured interview. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. We then performed a thematic analysis using all of the available transcript data. Investigators sequentially coded transcripts and identified recurring themes that encompass overarching patterns in the data and directly bear on the guiding study question. This was followed by the development of a thematic map that visually portrays the themes, the subthemes, and their interrelatedness, as well as their influence on treatment decision-making.ResultsThe thematic analysis revealed that numerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including clinical elements of the disease process, treatment guidelines, patient preferences, and the dynamics of the multidisciplinary care team. The most prominent feature that resonated across all of the interviews was the importance of multidisciplinary care and the necessity of cohesion among a team of diverse health-care providers. Respondents emphasized aspects of care-team dynamics, including effective communication and intimate knowledge of team-member preferences, as necessary for the development of appropriate treatment strategies. Participants maintained that the primary role in decision-making should remain with the patient.ConclusionsNumerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including multidisciplinary team dynamics, business pressure, and clinician experience. Participants maintained a focus on shared decision-making with patients, which contrasts with patient preferences to defer decisions to the physician, as described in prior work.Clinical relevanceThe results of this thematic analysis document the numerous factors that influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases. Our results indicate that provider decisions regarding treatment are influenced by a combination of clinical characteristics, perceptions of patient quality of life, and the patient's preferences for care.

Dataset Information

Prostate cancer survivors' beliefs about screening and treatment decision-making experiences in an era of controversy.

Publications

Prostate cancer survivors' beliefs about screening and treatment decision-making experiences in an era of controversy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets