Evaluating two decision aids for Australian men supporting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial
Kristen Pickles aff001; Luise Kazda aff001; Alexandra Barratt aff001; Kevin McGeechan aff001; Jolyn Hersch aff001; Kirsten McCaffery aff001
Působiště autorů: Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
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.
~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.
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.
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.
Cancer screening – Decision making – Educational attainment – Health screening – Prostate cancer – Psychometrics – Questionnaires – Screening guidelines
1. Medicare Benefits Schedule Book Category 6: Australian Government Department of Health 2015–2016.
2. Globocan 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organisation; 2012 [http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx.
3. Crowe J, Wootten AC, Howard N. Prostate cancer testing: a snapshot of the attitudes and practice of Australian general practitioners. Australian Journal of Primary Health 2015;21(1):111–4. doi: 10.1071/PY13078 24176263
4. Pickles K, Carter SM, Rychetnik L, et al. Goals, information-giving and understanding: a grounded theory study of Australian doctors’ varied communication about PSA testing. BMJ Open 2018;8:e018009 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018009 29362252
5. Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc 2018;319(18):1901–13.
6. Prostate cancer—PSA screening United Kingdom: National Health Service (NHS) Choice; [http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-prostate/Pages/Prevention.aspx.
7. NHMRC. PSA testing for prostate cancer in asymptomatic men: Information for health practitioners, 2014.
8. Wegwarth O, Wagner GG, Gigerenzer G. Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians’ non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations. PloS one 2017;12(8):e0183024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183024 28832633
9. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson AGH, et al. How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005;31(4):192–96. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.005793 15800356
10. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2017(4)
11. Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, et al. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2015;385(9978):1642–52.
12. Ilic D, Jammal W, Chiarelli P, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of decision aids for decision making in prostate cancer testing: a systematic review. Psycho‐Oncology 2015;24(10):1303–15. doi: 10.1002/pon.3815 25873433
13. Stacey DBC, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011(10)
14. Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one 2014;9(4):e94670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094670 24736389
15. McCaffery KJ, Holmes-Rovner M, Smith SK, et al. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids. BMC medical informatics and decision making 2013;13(2):S10.
16. Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, et al. Overdetection in breast cancer screening: development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid. BMJ open 2014;4(9):e006016. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006016 25256188
17. Clements M. Absolute risks of benefits and harms from PSA testing for use in the decision aid entitled "PSA testing for prostate cancer: It’s your choice". June 2018
18. Baptista S, Sampaio ET, Heleno B, et al. Web-based versus usual care and other formats of decision aids to support prostate cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2018;20(6)
19. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health expectations 2001;4(2):99–108. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x 11359540
20. Smith SK, Barratt A, Trevena L, et al. A theoretical framework for measuring knowledge in screening decision aid trials. Patient Educ Couns 2012;89(2):330–36. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.009 22871477
21. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, et al. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal 2010;341 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5370 20978060
22. Scherer LD, Caverly TJ, Burke J, et al. Development of the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale. Health Psychology 2016;35(11):1276. doi: 10.1037/hea0000417 27617512
23. Feletto E, Bang A, Cole-Clark D, et al. An examination of prostate cancer trends in Australia, England, Canada and USA: Is the Australian death rate too high? World journal of urology 2015;33(11):1677–87. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1514-7 25698456
24. McCaffery KJ, Jansen J, Scherer LD, et al. Walking the tightrope: communicating overdiagnosis in modern healthcare. Bmj 2016;352
25. Rim SH, Hall IJ, Massetti GM, et al. Primary Care Providers’ Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening. Journal of Cancer Education 2018:1–5.
Článek vyšel v časopise
2020 Číslo 1
- Nový typ fixace umožňuje pravidelnou hygienu končetiny i pobyt ve vodě
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Není statin jako statin aneb praktický přehled rozdílů jednotlivých molekul
- Pregabalin je účinné léčivo s příznivým bezpečnostním profilem pro pacienty s neuropatickou bolestí
- Nedostatek hořčíku se projevuje u stále více lidí