A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate a patient-educational approach to shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. DESIGN Randomized controlled trial with preoffice visit assessment and 2-week follow-up. SETTING University-based family practice center. PATIENTS Men aged 45 through 70 years with no history of prostate cancer or treatment for prostate disease (N = 160). Two patients were unavailable for follow-up. INTERVENTION Twenty-minute educational videotape on advantages and disadvantages of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES A measure of patients' core knowledge of prostate cancer developed for this study, reported preferences for PSA testing, and ratings of the videotape. RESULTS Patients' core knowledge at baseline was poor. At 2-week follow-up, subjects undergoing videotape intervention showed a 78% improvement in the number of knowledge questions answered correctly (P = .001), and knowledge increased about mortality due to early-stage prostate cancer, PSA screening performance, treatment-related complications, and disadvantages of screening. No overall change was observed for control subjects. At follow-up, 48 (62%) of 78 intervention patients planned to have the PSA test compared with 64 (80%) of 80 control patients (18.5% absolute reduction; 95% confidence interval, 4.6%-32.4%; P = .009). Intervention subjects rated favorably the amount of information provided and the clarity, balance, and length of the videotape and would recommend the videotape to others. CONCLUSIONS Patient education regarding the potential benefits and harms of early detection of prostate cancer can lead to more informed decision making. Incorporating the PSA videotape into the periodic health examination for asymptomatic men aged 50 years and older is recommended.

[1]  A. DiCenso Clinically useful measures of the effects of treatment , 2001, Evidence-based nursing.

[2]  Spann Sj Prostate cancer screening--what's a physician to do? , 1997 .

[3]  M. Barry,et al.  Early detection of prostate cancer. Part II: Estimating the risks, benefits, and costs. American College of Physicians. , 1997, Annals of internal medicine.

[4]  S. Cantor,et al.  Preferences of husbands and wives for prostate cancer screening. , 1997, Archives of family medicine.

[5]  R. Deber,et al.  What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  J. Schorling,et al.  The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  M. Barry,et al.  Patient Reactions to a Program Designed to Facilitate Patient Participation in Treatment Decisions for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia , 1995, Medical care.

[8]  S. Cantor,et al.  Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis. , 1995, The Journal of family practice.

[9]  M. Handley,et al.  The use of prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer screening: a managed care perspective. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[10]  J P Kassirer,et al.  Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  T. Randall Producers of videodisc programs strive to expand patient's role in medical decision-making process. , 1993, JAMA.

[12]  A. Mulley,et al.  Developing shared decision-making programs to improve the quality of health care. , 1992, QRB. Quality review bulletin.

[13]  G. Chapman,et al.  [Medical decision making]. , 1976, Lakartidningen.

[14]  S Kamen,et al.  The task force. , 1976, Journal of hospital dental practice.

[15]  Bernice W. Polemis Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 1959 .