Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.

Robert J. Volk, Stephen J. Spann, Alvab R. Cass, Sarah T. Hawley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

102 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: The efficacy of prostate cancer screening is uncertain, and professional organizations recommend educating patients about potential harms and benefits. We evaluated the effect of a videotape decision aid on promoting informed decision making about prostate cancer screening among primary care patients. METHODS: A group of 160 men, 45 to 70 years of age, with no history of prostate cancer, were randomized to view or not to view a 20-minute educational videotape before a routine office visit at a university-based family medicine clinic. The subjects were contacted again 1 year after their visit to assess their receipt of prostate cancer screening (digital rectal examination [DRE] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] testing), their satisfaction with their screening decision, and knowledge retention since the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Follow-up assessments were completed for 87.5% of the intervention subjects and 83.8% of the control subjects. The rate of DRE did not differ between the 2 groups. Prostate-specific antigen testing was reported by 24 of 70 (34.3%) intervention subjects and 37 of 67 (55.2%) control subjects (P = .01). African American men were more likely to have had PSA testing (9 of 16, 56.3%) than were white men (13 of 46, 28.3%) (P = .044). Satisfaction with the screening decision did not differ between the study groups. Intervention subjects were more knowledgeable of prostate cancer screening than were control subjects, although these differences declined within 1 year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids for prostate cancer screening can have a long-term effect on screening behavior and appear to promote informed decision making.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)22-28
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of Family Medicine
Volume1
Issue number1
StatePublished - May 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Education
Early Detection of Cancer
Prostatic Neoplasms
Decision Making
Randomized Controlled Trials
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Digital Rectal Examination
Videotape Recording
Decision Support Techniques
Office Visits
African Americans
Primary Health Care
Medicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening : a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. / Volk, Robert J.; Spann, Stephen J.; Cass, Alvab R.; Hawley, Sarah T.

In: Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 1, No. 1, 05.2003, p. 22-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Volk, Robert J. ; Spann, Stephen J. ; Cass, Alvab R. ; Hawley, Sarah T. / Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening : a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. In: Annals of Family Medicine. 2003 ; Vol. 1, No. 1. pp. 22-28.
@article{9e676236146045eaa6647e4ac35ef11f,
title = "Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.",
abstract = "PURPOSE: The efficacy of prostate cancer screening is uncertain, and professional organizations recommend educating patients about potential harms and benefits. We evaluated the effect of a videotape decision aid on promoting informed decision making about prostate cancer screening among primary care patients. METHODS: A group of 160 men, 45 to 70 years of age, with no history of prostate cancer, were randomized to view or not to view a 20-minute educational videotape before a routine office visit at a university-based family medicine clinic. The subjects were contacted again 1 year after their visit to assess their receipt of prostate cancer screening (digital rectal examination [DRE] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] testing), their satisfaction with their screening decision, and knowledge retention since the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Follow-up assessments were completed for 87.5{\%} of the intervention subjects and 83.8{\%} of the control subjects. The rate of DRE did not differ between the 2 groups. Prostate-specific antigen testing was reported by 24 of 70 (34.3{\%}) intervention subjects and 37 of 67 (55.2{\%}) control subjects (P = .01). African American men were more likely to have had PSA testing (9 of 16, 56.3{\%}) than were white men (13 of 46, 28.3{\%}) (P = .044). Satisfaction with the screening decision did not differ between the study groups. Intervention subjects were more knowledgeable of prostate cancer screening than were control subjects, although these differences declined within 1 year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids for prostate cancer screening can have a long-term effect on screening behavior and appear to promote informed decision making.",
author = "Volk, {Robert J.} and Spann, {Stephen J.} and Cass, {Alvab R.} and Hawley, {Sarah T.}",
year = "2003",
month = "5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
pages = "22--28",
journal = "Annals of Family Medicine",
issn = "1544-1709",
publisher = "Annals of Family Medicine, Inc",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening

T2 - a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.

AU - Volk, Robert J.

AU - Spann, Stephen J.

AU - Cass, Alvab R.

AU - Hawley, Sarah T.

PY - 2003/5

Y1 - 2003/5

N2 - PURPOSE: The efficacy of prostate cancer screening is uncertain, and professional organizations recommend educating patients about potential harms and benefits. We evaluated the effect of a videotape decision aid on promoting informed decision making about prostate cancer screening among primary care patients. METHODS: A group of 160 men, 45 to 70 years of age, with no history of prostate cancer, were randomized to view or not to view a 20-minute educational videotape before a routine office visit at a university-based family medicine clinic. The subjects were contacted again 1 year after their visit to assess their receipt of prostate cancer screening (digital rectal examination [DRE] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] testing), their satisfaction with their screening decision, and knowledge retention since the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Follow-up assessments were completed for 87.5% of the intervention subjects and 83.8% of the control subjects. The rate of DRE did not differ between the 2 groups. Prostate-specific antigen testing was reported by 24 of 70 (34.3%) intervention subjects and 37 of 67 (55.2%) control subjects (P = .01). African American men were more likely to have had PSA testing (9 of 16, 56.3%) than were white men (13 of 46, 28.3%) (P = .044). Satisfaction with the screening decision did not differ between the study groups. Intervention subjects were more knowledgeable of prostate cancer screening than were control subjects, although these differences declined within 1 year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids for prostate cancer screening can have a long-term effect on screening behavior and appear to promote informed decision making.

AB - PURPOSE: The efficacy of prostate cancer screening is uncertain, and professional organizations recommend educating patients about potential harms and benefits. We evaluated the effect of a videotape decision aid on promoting informed decision making about prostate cancer screening among primary care patients. METHODS: A group of 160 men, 45 to 70 years of age, with no history of prostate cancer, were randomized to view or not to view a 20-minute educational videotape before a routine office visit at a university-based family medicine clinic. The subjects were contacted again 1 year after their visit to assess their receipt of prostate cancer screening (digital rectal examination [DRE] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] testing), their satisfaction with their screening decision, and knowledge retention since the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Follow-up assessments were completed for 87.5% of the intervention subjects and 83.8% of the control subjects. The rate of DRE did not differ between the 2 groups. Prostate-specific antigen testing was reported by 24 of 70 (34.3%) intervention subjects and 37 of 67 (55.2%) control subjects (P = .01). African American men were more likely to have had PSA testing (9 of 16, 56.3%) than were white men (13 of 46, 28.3%) (P = .044). Satisfaction with the screening decision did not differ between the study groups. Intervention subjects were more knowledgeable of prostate cancer screening than were control subjects, although these differences declined within 1 year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids for prostate cancer screening can have a long-term effect on screening behavior and appear to promote informed decision making.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2342455751&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2342455751&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15043176

AN - SCOPUS:2342455751

VL - 1

SP - 22

EP - 28

JO - Annals of Family Medicine

JF - Annals of Family Medicine

SN - 1544-1709

IS - 1

ER -