Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17389534›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine

Patient education on prostate cancer screening and involvement in decision making.

Alex H Krist, Steven H Woolf, Robert E Johnson, J William Kerns

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. An exploratory mixed-methods crossover study comparing DVD- vs. Web-based patient decision support in three conditions: The importance of patient perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alex H KristDepartment of Family Medicine, Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Virginia Commonwealth University, Fairfax, VA 22033, USA. ahkrist@vcu.edu
Steven H Woolf
Robert E Johnson
J William Kerns

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany clinicians lack resources to engage patients in shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. We sought to evaluate whether previsit educational decision aids facilitate shared decision making.

methodsThis randomized controlled study compared a Web-based and a paper-based decision aid with no previsit education. Men aged 50 to 70 years undergoing a health maintenance examination at a large family practice were enrolled. The primary outcome was patient-reported level of control over the decision to be screened. Secondary outcomes included frequency of screening, patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and time spent discussing screening.

resultsA total of 497 men participated (75 control, 196 brochure, 226 Web site). Patients exposed to either aid were no more likely than control patients to report a collaborative decision: 36% of patients in each group reported equally sharing decision responsibility. Exposure to either decision aid increased patients' involvement in decision making compared with the control condition (Web site, P = .03; brochure, P = .03). Only 46% of control patients reported an active decision-making role, compared with 56% of Web site and 54% of brochure patients. Patients exposed to a decision aid answered a greater percentage of knowledge questions correctly (54% control vs 69% Web site, P <.001, and vs 69% brochure, P <.001) and were less likely to be screened (94% control vs 86% Web site, P = .06, and vs 85% brochure, P = .04).

conclusionsPatients in the decision aid groups were more informed and more engaged in the screening decision than their control counterparts. Exposure did not promote shared decision-making control, however. Whether shared decision making is the ideal model and how to measure its occurrence are subjects for further research.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingHumansInternal-External ControlInternetMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPaperPatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID17389534
PMCPMC1838687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.