The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences

A Randomized Survey Study

Adam B. Weiner, Kyle P. Tsai, Mary Kate Keeter, David E Victorson, Edward Matthew Schaeffer, William J Catalona, Shilajit D Kundu*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood. Materials and Methods: In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening on a scale of 1—unlikely to 100—extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with prostate cancer screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions. Results: Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50% were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening decreased from 83 to 78 following decision aid exposure (p <0.001). Reviewing the decision aid from the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Family Physicians did not alter the likelihood (each p >0.2). However, the decision aid from the United States Preventive Services Task Force was associated with the largest decrease in screening preference (–16.0, p <0.001). Participants reported increased comfort (from 3.5 to 4.1 of 5) with the decision making process of prostate cancer screening following exposure to a decision aid (p <0.001). Conclusions: Exposure to a decision aid decreased the participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening and increased comfort with the screening process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1048-1055
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume200
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2018

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Early Detection of Cancer
Prostatic Neoplasms
Decision Making
Surveys and Questionnaires
Marital Status
Advisory Committees
Education

Keywords

  • decision support techniques
  • early detection of cancer
  • prostate-specific antigen
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • surveys and questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

@article{f83e7768d61f4213aab992141afae280,
title = "The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study",
abstract = "Purpose: Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood. Materials and Methods: In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening on a scale of 1—unlikely to 100—extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with prostate cancer screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions. Results: Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50{\%} were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening decreased from 83 to 78 following decision aid exposure (p <0.001). Reviewing the decision aid from the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Family Physicians did not alter the likelihood (each p >0.2). However, the decision aid from the United States Preventive Services Task Force was associated with the largest decrease in screening preference (–16.0, p <0.001). Participants reported increased comfort (from 3.5 to 4.1 of 5) with the decision making process of prostate cancer screening following exposure to a decision aid (p <0.001). Conclusions: Exposure to a decision aid decreased the participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening and increased comfort with the screening process.",
keywords = "decision support techniques, early detection of cancer, prostate-specific antigen, prostatic neoplasms, surveys and questionnaires",
author = "Weiner, {Adam B.} and Tsai, {Kyle P.} and Keeter, {Mary Kate} and Victorson, {David E} and Schaeffer, {Edward Matthew} and Catalona, {William J} and Kundu, {Shilajit D}",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.093",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "200",
pages = "1048--1055",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences : A Randomized Survey Study. / Weiner, Adam B.; Tsai, Kyle P.; Keeter, Mary Kate; Victorson, David E; Schaeffer, Edward Matthew; Catalona, William J; Kundu, Shilajit D.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 200, No. 5, 01.11.2018, p. 1048-1055.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences

T2 - A Randomized Survey Study

AU - Weiner, Adam B.

AU - Tsai, Kyle P.

AU - Keeter, Mary Kate

AU - Victorson, David E

AU - Schaeffer, Edward Matthew

AU - Catalona, William J

AU - Kundu, Shilajit D

PY - 2018/11/1

Y1 - 2018/11/1

N2 - Purpose: Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood. Materials and Methods: In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening on a scale of 1—unlikely to 100—extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with prostate cancer screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions. Results: Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50% were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening decreased from 83 to 78 following decision aid exposure (p <0.001). Reviewing the decision aid from the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Family Physicians did not alter the likelihood (each p >0.2). However, the decision aid from the United States Preventive Services Task Force was associated with the largest decrease in screening preference (–16.0, p <0.001). Participants reported increased comfort (from 3.5 to 4.1 of 5) with the decision making process of prostate cancer screening following exposure to a decision aid (p <0.001). Conclusions: Exposure to a decision aid decreased the participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening and increased comfort with the screening process.

AB - Purpose: Shared decision making is recommended in regard to prostate cancer screening. Decision aids may facilitate this process but the impact of decision aids on screening preferences is poorly understood. Materials and Methods: In an online survey we randomized a national sample of adults to the online decision aids of 1 of 6 professional societies. We compared survey responses before and after decision aid exposure. The primary outcome was the change in participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening on a scale of 1—unlikely to 100—extremely likely. Secondary outcomes included change in participant comfort with prostate cancer screening based on the average of 6, 5-point Likert-scale questions. Results: Median age was 53 years in the 1,336 participants and 50% were men. The randomized groups did not differ significantly by race, age, gender, income, marital status or education level. The likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening decreased from 83 to 78 following decision aid exposure (p <0.001). Reviewing the decision aid from the Centers for Disease Control or the American Academy of Family Physicians did not alter the likelihood (each p >0.2). However, the decision aid from the United States Preventive Services Task Force was associated with the largest decrease in screening preference (–16.0, p <0.001). Participants reported increased comfort (from 3.5 to 4.1 of 5) with the decision making process of prostate cancer screening following exposure to a decision aid (p <0.001). Conclusions: Exposure to a decision aid decreased the participant likelihood of undergoing or recommending prostate cancer screening and increased comfort with the screening process.

KW - decision support techniques

KW - early detection of cancer

KW - prostate-specific antigen

KW - prostatic neoplasms

KW - surveys and questionnaires

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053625280&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053625280&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.093

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.093

M3 - Article

VL - 200

SP - 1048

EP - 1055

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 5

ER -