Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2004
Randomized trial examining the effect of two prostate cancer screening educational interventions on patient knowledge, preferences, and behaviors.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00013247 (Facilitating Shared Decisionmaking About Prostate Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Facilitating Shared Decisionmaking About Prostate Cancer Screening
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of decision aid delivery modes in prostate cancer screening: umbrella review and network meta-analysis.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Videos to influence: a systematic review of effectiveness of video-based education in modifying health behaviors.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2014Pooled it
- Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: a systematic review.American journal of health behavior · 2013Pooled it
- Interventions to improve decision making and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the management of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2012Pooled it
- What works with men? A systematic review of health promoting interventions targeting men.BMC health services research · 2008Pooled it
- A systematic review of information in decision aids.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2007Pooled it
- Evaluating the Effect of a Video Education Curriculum for First Time Breast Cancer Patients: a Prospective RCT Feasibility Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Trial
- A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2013Trial
- Fostering informed decisions: a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of a decision aid among men registered to undergo mass screening for prostate cancer.Patient education and counseling · 2013Trial
- Informed decision making about prostate cancer testing in predominantly immigrant black men: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2012Trial
- Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Trial
- A randomized trial of a computer-tailored decision aid to improve prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the Take the Wheel trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2010Trial
- The development of a web- and a print-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2010Trial
- A randomized trial comparing web-based decision aids on prostate cancer knowledge for African-American men.Journal of the National Medical Association · 2008Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effect of video and pamphlet interventions on patient prostate cancer (CaP) screening knowledge, decision-making participation, preferences, and behaviors.
designRandomized, controlled trial.
settingFour midwestern Veterans Affairs medical facilities. PATIENTS/
participantsOne thousand, one hundred fifty-two male veterans age 50 and older with primary care appointments at participating facilities were randomized and 893 completed follow-up.
interventionsPatients were randomized to mailed pamphlet, mailed video, or usual care/control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOutcomes assessed by phone survey 2 weeks postintervention included a 10-item knowledge index; correct responses to questions on CaP natural history, treatment efficacy, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA)'s predictive value, and expert disagreement about the PSA; whether screening was discussed with provider; screening preferences; and PSA testing rates. Mean knowledge index scores were higher for video (7.44; P = .001) and pamphlet (7.26; P = .03) subjects versus controls (6.90). Video and pamphlet subjects reported significantly higher percentages of correct responses relative to controls to questions on CaP natural history (63%, 63%, and 54%, respectively); treatment efficacy (19%, 20%, and 5%), and expert disagreement (28%, 19%, and 8%), but not PSA accuracy (28%, 22%, and 22%). Pamphlet subjects were more likely than controls to discuss screening with their provider (41% vs 32%; P = .03) but video subjects were not (35%; P = .33). Video and pamphlet subjects were less likely to intend to have a PSA, relative to controls (63%, 65%, and 74%, respectively). PSA testing rates did not differ significantly across groups.
conclusionsMailed interventions enhance patient knowledge and self-reported participation in decision making, and alter screening preferences. The pamphlet and video interventions evaluated are comparable in effectiveness. The lower-cost pamphlet approach is an attractive option for clinics with limited resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.