Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials
- PMID: 23148458
- PMCID: PMC3582602
- DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-130
Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Background: Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions.
Methods: We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician.
Results: Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame.
Conclusions: SDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions.
Trial registration: #NCT00630188.
Similar articles
-
Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers.Trials. 2021 Feb 10;22(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05064-4. Trials. 2021. PMID: 33568208 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions.Nat Rev Urol. 2024 Jun;21(6):329-338. doi: 10.1038/s41585-023-00840-0. Epub 2024 Jan 2. Nat Rev Urol. 2024. PMID: 38168921 Review.
-
Pairing physician education with patient activation to improve shared decisions in prostate cancer screening: a cluster randomized controlled trial.Ann Fam Med. 2013 Jul-Aug;11(4):324-34. doi: 10.1370/afm.1550. Ann Fam Med. 2013. PMID: 23835818 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing: the effect of a mailed patient flyer prior to an annual exam.J Prim Care Community Health. 2013 Jan;4(1):67-74. doi: 10.1177/2150131912447074. Epub 2012 May 16. J Prim Care Community Health. 2013. PMID: 23799692 Clinical Trial.
-
Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12;(5):CD006732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 15;(9):CD006732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub3. PMID: 20464744 Updated. Review.
Cited by
-
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38284415 Review.
-
Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers (Basel). 2023 Jul 29;15(15):3867. doi: 10.3390/cancers15153867. Cancers (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37568683 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Effectiveness of Shared Decision-making Training Programs for Health Care Professionals Using Reflexivity Strategies: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review.JMIR Med Educ. 2022 Dec 7;8(4):e42033. doi: 10.2196/42033. JMIR Med Educ. 2022. PMID: 36318726 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022 Oct 8;22(1):265. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-02007-0. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022. PMID: 36209086 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.PLoS One. 2022 Mar 16;17(3):e0265401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265401. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 35294494 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(2):120–134. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
