ArticleBJU international2010
Development of a scale to assess patient misperceptions about treatment choices for localized prostate cancer.
Article in BJU international, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention for low risk prostate cancer patients.Cancer medicine · 2020Trial
- Personal preferences and discordant prostate cancer treatment choice in an intervention trial of men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2012Trial
- Physicians' perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients.Health education research · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a questionnaire to assess a patient's knowledge of his cancer, understanding of treatment choices, and judgement of his survival (KUJ) with and without treatment, as treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPC) can lead to urinary, sexual and bowel side-effects and might not improve survival in 75% of patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsAlthough >90% of patients in the USA are diagnosed with LPC, approximately 94% of them choose treatment, such that newly diagnosed patients need individualized counselling to address misperceptions about the management of LPC. The internal consistency of an 18-item KUJ scale was evaluated among 184 patients recently diagnosed with LPC at a major urology practice. Principal-component analyses were applied for computing a KUJ index. Logistic regression modelling was used to identify predictors of the KUJ index.
resultsCronbach's alpha for the KUJ scale was 0.76. Nearly half of the patients provided incorrect answers to most KUJ items. Of the patients, 68% had an income of >US$50,000 and 90% had at least high (or secondary) school literacy level. Quality-of-life measures suggested that most patients were physically, mentally and socially healthy. Higher education, income and functional capacity were associated with worse KUJ.
conclusionThe KUJ scale is internally consistent and clinicians can use it to identify the educational needs of patients with LPC before treatment selection. Overall, patients who were socioeconomically disadvantaged and those with physical ailments were better informed about the diagnosis, treatment options and prognosis of prostate cancer.
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.