Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20693148›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2010

Supporting informed decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing on the web: an online randomized controlled trial.

Rhodri Evans, Natalie Joseph-Williams, Adrian Edwards, Robert G Newcombe, Patricia Wright, Paul Kinnersley, Jeff Griffiths, Mari Jones, Janet Williams, Richard Grol and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03583840 (Effectiveness of a Web-based Intervention to Promote Health Screening in Men), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 14 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.

NCT03583840 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of a Web-based Intervention to Promote Health Screening in Men: A Community-based Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MalayaRan2019 to 2019Enrolled220ConditionsMass Screening, Preventive Health ServicesArmsScreenMen website
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 14 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. Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. 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
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Decision aids for people considering taking part in clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  13. Providing information about options in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. 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
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Rhodri EvansDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom. evansr10@cardiff.ac.uk
Natalie Joseph-Williams
Adrian Edwards
Robert G Newcombe
Patricia Wright
Paul Kinnersley
Jeff Griffiths
Mari Jones
Janet Williams
Richard Grol
Glyn Elwyn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMen considering the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer, an increasingly common male cancer, are encouraged to make informed decisions, as the test is limited in its accuracy and the natural history of the condition is poorly understood. The Web-based PSA decision aid, Prosdex, was developed as part of the UK Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme in order to help men make such informed decisions.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the Web-based PSA decision aid, Prosdex, on informed decision making.

methodsA Web-based randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Wales, United Kingdom. Men aged 50 to 75 who had not previously had a PSA test were randomly allocated to two intervention and two control groups. Participants in the intervention groups either viewed Prosdex or were given a paper version of the text. The main outcome measures were the three components of informed decision making: (1) knowledge of prostate cancer and PSA, (2) attitude toward PSA testing, (3) behavior using a proxy measure, intention to undergo PSA testing. Decisional conflict and anxiety were also measured as was uptake of the PSA test. Outcomes were measured by means of an online questionnaire for the Prosdex group, the paper version group, and one of two control groups. Six months later, PSA test uptake was ascertained from general practitioners' records, and the online questionnaire was repeated. Results are reported in terms of the Mann-Whitney U-statistic divided by the product of the two sample sizes (U/mm), line of no effect 0.50.

resultsParticipants were 514 men. Compared with the control group that completed the initial online questionnaire, men in the Prosdex group had increased knowledge about the PSA test and prostate cancer (U/mn 0.70; 95% CI 0.62 - 0.76); less favourable attitudes to PSA testing (U/mn 0.39, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.47); were less likely to undergo PSA testing (U/mn 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 - 0.48); and had less decisional conflict (U/mn 0.32, 95% CI 0.25 - 0.40); while anxiety level did not differ (U/mn 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 - 0.58). For these outcomes there were no significant differences between men in the Prosdex group and the paper version group. However, in the Prosdex group, increased knowledge was associated with a less favourable attitude toward testing (Spearman rank correlation [rho] = -0.49, P < .001) and lower intention to undergo testing (rho = -0.27, P = .02). After six months, PSA test uptake was lower in the Prosdex group than in the paper version and the questionnaire control group (P = .014). Test uptake was also lower in the control group that did not complete a questionnaire than in the control group that did, suggesting a possible Hawthorne effect of the questionnaire in favour of PSA testing.

conclusionsExposure to Prosdex was associated with improved knowledge about the PSA test and prostate cancer. Men who had a high level of knowledge had a less favourable attitude toward and were less likely to undergo PSA testing. Prosdex appears to promote informed decision making regarding the PSA test.

trial registrationISRCTN48473735; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN48473735 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5r1TLQ5nK).

Indexed as

Decision MakingAgedAttitude to HealthHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioOnline SystemsPhysicians, FamilyProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk ManagementSocial SupportSurveys and QuestionnairesProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID20693148
PMCPMC2956331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.