ArticlePatient education and counseling2009
A structured implicit abstraction method to evaluate whether content of counseling before prostate cancer screening is consistent with recommendations by experts.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frequency of high-quality communication behaviors used by primary care providers of heterozygous infants after newborn screening.Patient education and counseling · 2013Article
- A method to assess the organizing behaviors used in physicians' counseling of standardized parents after newborn genetic screening.Communication & medicine · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the content of counseling about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Guidelines recommend informed consent before screening because of concerns about benefits versus risks. As part of the professional practice standard for informed consent, clinicians should include content customarily provided by experts.
methods40 transcripts of conversations between medicine residents and standardized patients were abstracted using an instrument derived from an expert Delphi panel that ranked 10 "facts that experts believe men ought to know."
resultsTranscripts contained definite criteria for an average of 1.7 facts, and either definite or partial criteria for 5.1 facts. Second- and third-year residents presented more facts than interns (p=0.01). The most common facts were "false positive PSA tests can occur" and "use of the PSA test as a screening test is controversial." There was an r=0.88 correlation between inclusion by residents and the experts' ranking.
conclusionCounseling varied but most transcripts included some expert-recommended facts. The absence of other facts could be a quality deficit or an effort to prioritize messages and lessen cognitive demands on the patient. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should adapt counseling for each patient, but our abstraction approach may help to assess the quality of informed consent over larger populations.
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.