Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: California law (Grant H. Kenyon Prostate Cancer Detection Act) requires physicians to inform all patients older than aged 50 years who receive a prostate examination about the availability of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Physicians are not given guidance on how this information should be presented. We sought to evaluate the effects upon PSA screening rates of informing patients about PSA testing by 2 different techniques.

DESIGN: Factorial comparison of discussion versus video formats for presenting information about the PSA test.

SETTING: Patients were recruited through the Health Appraisal screening program in the Department of Preventive Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, Calif.

PARTICIPANTS: Male patients undergoing health appraisal screening participated in 1 of 4 groups providing information about PSA screening: usual care (n=43), discussion about risks and benefits of PSA (n=45), shared decision-making video (n=46), or video plus discussion (n=42). Participants were sequentially assigned to 1 of the 4 groups.

RESULTS: No significant differences in demographics or family history was demonstrated between the groups at the time of group assignment. Participants in the intervention groups rated the information as clear, balanced, and fair. There were significant differences in the number of men requesting a PSA test, with the highest rate in the usual care group (97.7%), followed by discussion (82.2%), video (60.0%), and video plus discussion (50.0%).

CONCLUSION: Providing information about PSA screening in the form of video or discussion is feasible and significantly alters PSA screening rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boyle P. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing as screening for prostate cancer: the current controversy. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1263–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barry MJ. PSA screening for prostate cancer: the current controversy — a viewpoint. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1279–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Johansson JE, Holmberg L, Johansson S, Bergström R, Adami HO. Fifteen-year survival in prostate cancer. A prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA. 1997;277:467–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. The American Urological Association Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel. Report on the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Baltimore, Md: American Urological Association Inc; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. American Cancer Society Prostate Cancer Screening Guidelines. Cancer Facts and Figures 1997. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Executive Committee Report: Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Baltimore, Md: American Urologic Association; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan RM. Shared medical decision-making: a new paradigm for behavioral medicine. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21:3–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM. Shared decision-making in clinical medicine: past research and future directions. Am J Prev Med. 1999;17:285–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Flood AB, Wennberg JE, Nease RF, Fowler FJ, Ding J, Hynes LM. The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:342–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maxwell SE. Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Publishers; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wolf AM, Nasser JF, Wolf AM, Schorling JB. The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1333–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Volk RJ, Cass AR, Spann SJ. A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:333–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, Mulley AG, Henderson JV, Wennberg JE. Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate patient participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Care. 1995;33:771–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dartmouth Medical School, Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1998. Dartmouth: American Hospital Association; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Morgan MW, Deber RB, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an interactive videodisc decision aid for patients with ischemic heart disease. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:685–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kasper JF, Mulley AG, Wennberg JE. Developing shared decision-making programs to improve the quality of health care. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1992;18:183–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Man-Son-Hing M, Laupacis A, O’Connor AM, et al. Development of a decision aid for patients with atrial fibrillation who are considering antithrombotic therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:723–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominick L. Frosch BA.

Additional information

Supported in part by grant TPRH-98-119-01 from the American Cancer Society. Gratitude is expressed to Kathy Peterman, Donna Lupinacci, Kathy Jakstis, and the staff at Health Appraisal Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, without whom this study would not have been possible.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frosch, D.L., Kaplan, R.M. & Felitti, V. Evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test. J GEN INTERN MED 16, 391–398 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016006391.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016006391.x

Key words

Navigation