Prostate cancer screening decisions: Results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study)

Richard M. Hoffman, Mick P. Couper, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, Carrie A. Levin, Mary McNaughton-Collins, Deborah Helitzer, John VanHoewyk, Michael J. Barry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

104 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Guidelines recommend informing patients about the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. We evaluated the medical decision-making process for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Methods: We conducted a telephone survey of a randomly selected national sample of 3010 Englishspeaking US adults 40 years and older. Included in the survey were 375 men who had either undergone or discussed (with health care providers [HCPs]) PSA testing in the previous 2 years. We asked subjects about sociodemographic characteristics, prostate cancer screening discussion features, prostate cancer knowledge, and the importance of various decision factors and sources of information. Results: Overall, 69.9% of subjects discussed screening before making a testing decision, including 14.4% who were not tested. Health care providers most often (64.6%) raised the idea of screening, and 73.4% recommended PSA testing. Health care providers emphasized the pros of testing in 71.4% of discussions but infrequently addressed the cons (32.0%). Although 58.0% of subjects felt well-informed about PSA testing, 47.8% failed to correctly answer any of the 3 knowledge questions. Only 54.8% of subjects reported being asked for their screening preferences. An HCP recommendation (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.58) was the only discussion characteristic associated with testing. Valuing HCP information was also associated with testing (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.54). Conclusions: Recommendations and information from HCPs strongly influenced testing decisions. However, most prostate cancer screening decisions did not meet criteria for shared decision making because subjects did not receive balanced discussions of decision consequences, had limited knowledge, and were not routinely asked for their preferences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1611-1618
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume169
Issue number17
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 14 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Health Personnel
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Telephone
Surveys and Questionnaires
Decision Making
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Hoffman, R. M., Couper, M. P., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Levin, C. A., McNaughton-Collins, M., Helitzer, D., ... Barry, M. J. (2009). Prostate cancer screening decisions: Results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study). Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(17), 1611-1618. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.262

Prostate cancer screening decisions : Results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study). / Hoffman, Richard M.; Couper, Mick P.; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.; Levin, Carrie A.; McNaughton-Collins, Mary; Helitzer, Deborah; VanHoewyk, John; Barry, Michael J.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 169, No. 17, 14.10.2009, p. 1611-1618.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hoffman, RM, Couper, MP, Zikmund-Fisher, BJ, Levin, CA, McNaughton-Collins, M, Helitzer, D, VanHoewyk, J & Barry, MJ 2009, 'Prostate cancer screening decisions: Results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study)', Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 169, no. 17, pp. 1611-1618. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.262
Hoffman, Richard M. ; Couper, Mick P. ; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. ; Levin, Carrie A. ; McNaughton-Collins, Mary ; Helitzer, Deborah ; VanHoewyk, John ; Barry, Michael J. / Prostate cancer screening decisions : Results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study). In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009 ; Vol. 169, No. 17. pp. 1611-1618.
@article{93a009d71c1548e5af1dc57916764837,
title = "Prostate cancer screening decisions: Results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study)",
abstract = "Background: Guidelines recommend informing patients about the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. We evaluated the medical decision-making process for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Methods: We conducted a telephone survey of a randomly selected national sample of 3010 Englishspeaking US adults 40 years and older. Included in the survey were 375 men who had either undergone or discussed (with health care providers [HCPs]) PSA testing in the previous 2 years. We asked subjects about sociodemographic characteristics, prostate cancer screening discussion features, prostate cancer knowledge, and the importance of various decision factors and sources of information. Results: Overall, 69.9{\%} of subjects discussed screening before making a testing decision, including 14.4{\%} who were not tested. Health care providers most often (64.6{\%}) raised the idea of screening, and 73.4{\%} recommended PSA testing. Health care providers emphasized the pros of testing in 71.4{\%} of discussions but infrequently addressed the cons (32.0{\%}). Although 58.0{\%} of subjects felt well-informed about PSA testing, 47.8{\%} failed to correctly answer any of the 3 knowledge questions. Only 54.8{\%} of subjects reported being asked for their screening preferences. An HCP recommendation (odds ratio, 2.67; 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.08-6.58) was the only discussion characteristic associated with testing. Valuing HCP information was also associated with testing (odds ratio, 1.26; 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.04-1.54). Conclusions: Recommendations and information from HCPs strongly influenced testing decisions. However, most prostate cancer screening decisions did not meet criteria for shared decision making because subjects did not receive balanced discussions of decision consequences, had limited knowledge, and were not routinely asked for their preferences.",
author = "Hoffman, {Richard M.} and Couper, {Mick P.} and Zikmund-Fisher, {Brian J.} and Levin, {Carrie A.} and Mary McNaughton-Collins and Deborah Helitzer and John VanHoewyk and Barry, {Michael J.}",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1001/archinternmed.2009.262",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "169",
pages = "1611--1618",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "17",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prostate cancer screening decisions

T2 - Results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study)

AU - Hoffman, Richard M.

AU - Couper, Mick P.

AU - Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.

AU - Levin, Carrie A.

AU - McNaughton-Collins, Mary

AU - Helitzer, Deborah

AU - VanHoewyk, John

AU - Barry, Michael J.

PY - 2009/10/14

Y1 - 2009/10/14

N2 - Background: Guidelines recommend informing patients about the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. We evaluated the medical decision-making process for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Methods: We conducted a telephone survey of a randomly selected national sample of 3010 Englishspeaking US adults 40 years and older. Included in the survey were 375 men who had either undergone or discussed (with health care providers [HCPs]) PSA testing in the previous 2 years. We asked subjects about sociodemographic characteristics, prostate cancer screening discussion features, prostate cancer knowledge, and the importance of various decision factors and sources of information. Results: Overall, 69.9% of subjects discussed screening before making a testing decision, including 14.4% who were not tested. Health care providers most often (64.6%) raised the idea of screening, and 73.4% recommended PSA testing. Health care providers emphasized the pros of testing in 71.4% of discussions but infrequently addressed the cons (32.0%). Although 58.0% of subjects felt well-informed about PSA testing, 47.8% failed to correctly answer any of the 3 knowledge questions. Only 54.8% of subjects reported being asked for their screening preferences. An HCP recommendation (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.58) was the only discussion characteristic associated with testing. Valuing HCP information was also associated with testing (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.54). Conclusions: Recommendations and information from HCPs strongly influenced testing decisions. However, most prostate cancer screening decisions did not meet criteria for shared decision making because subjects did not receive balanced discussions of decision consequences, had limited knowledge, and were not routinely asked for their preferences.

AB - Background: Guidelines recommend informing patients about the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. We evaluated the medical decision-making process for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Methods: We conducted a telephone survey of a randomly selected national sample of 3010 Englishspeaking US adults 40 years and older. Included in the survey were 375 men who had either undergone or discussed (with health care providers [HCPs]) PSA testing in the previous 2 years. We asked subjects about sociodemographic characteristics, prostate cancer screening discussion features, prostate cancer knowledge, and the importance of various decision factors and sources of information. Results: Overall, 69.9% of subjects discussed screening before making a testing decision, including 14.4% who were not tested. Health care providers most often (64.6%) raised the idea of screening, and 73.4% recommended PSA testing. Health care providers emphasized the pros of testing in 71.4% of discussions but infrequently addressed the cons (32.0%). Although 58.0% of subjects felt well-informed about PSA testing, 47.8% failed to correctly answer any of the 3 knowledge questions. Only 54.8% of subjects reported being asked for their screening preferences. An HCP recommendation (odds ratio, 2.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-6.58) was the only discussion characteristic associated with testing. Valuing HCP information was also associated with testing (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.54). Conclusions: Recommendations and information from HCPs strongly influenced testing decisions. However, most prostate cancer screening decisions did not meet criteria for shared decision making because subjects did not receive balanced discussions of decision consequences, had limited knowledge, and were not routinely asked for their preferences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349778130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349778130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.262

DO - 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.262

M3 - Article

C2 - 19786681

AN - SCOPUS:70349778130

VL - 169

SP - 1611

EP - 1618

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 17

ER -