Title |
Testing of a Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions in Primary Care
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in oncology, June 2018
|
DOI | 10.3389/fonc.2018.00238 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anita D. Misra-Hebert, Grant Hom, Eric A. Klein, Janine M. Bauman, Niyati Gupta, Xinge Ji, Andrew J. Stephenson, J. Stephen Jones, Michael W. Kattan |
Abstract |
As prostate cancer (PCa) screening decisions often occur in outpatient primary care, a brief tool to help the PCa screening conversation in busy clinic settings is needed. A previously created 9-item tool to aid PCa screening discussions was tested in five diverse primary care clinics. Fifteen providers were recruited to use the tool for 4 weeks, and the tool was revised based upon feedback. The providers then used the tool with a convenience sample of patients during routine clinic visits. Pre- and post-visit surveys were administered to assess patients' knowledge of the option to be screened for PCa and of specific factors to consider in the decision. McNemar's and Stuart-Maxwell tests were used to compare pre-and post-survey responses. 14 of 15 providers completed feedback surveys and had positive responses to the tool. All 15 providers then tested the tool on 95 men aged 40-69 at the five clinics with 2-10 patients each. The proportion of patients who strongly agreed that they had the option to choose to screen for PCa increased from 57 to 72% (p = 0.018) from the pre- to post-survey, that there are factors in the personal or family history that may affect PCa risk from 34 to 47% (p = 0.012), and that their opinions about possible side effects of treatment for PCa should be considered in the decision from 47 to 61% (p = 0.009). A brief conversation tool for the PCa screening discussion was well received in busy primary-care settings and improved patients' knowledge about the screening decision. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 4 | 27% |
Other | 2 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
Other | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 27% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 20% |
Engineering | 2 | 13% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
Chemistry | 1 | 7% |
Other | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 3 | 20% |