ArticleFamily medicine2011
Physicians' attitudes about shared decision making for prostate cancer screening.
Article in Family medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Shared medical decision in prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic literature review of current evidence.International urology and nephrology · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical Notes Contain Limited Documentation of Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Trial
- Pairing physician education with patient activation to improve shared decisions in prostate cancer screening: a cluster randomized controlled trial.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Prevalence and determinants of shared decision-making for PSA testing in the United States.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025Article
- Clinician and patient perspectives on screening mammography among women age 75 and older: A pilot study of a novel decision aid.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Recent Patterns in Shared Decision Making for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing in the United States.Annals of family medicine · 2018Article
- Multilevel Influences on Patient-Oncologist Communication about Genomic Test Results: Oncologist Perspectives.Journal of health communication · 2018Article
- Physicians' perspectives on the informational needs of low-risk prostate cancer patients.Health education research · 2017Article
- Knowledge and practice of prostate cancer screening among general practitioners in Malaysia: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2016Article
- African american primary care physicians' prostate cancer screening practices.Journal of primary care & community health · 2014Article
- US Primary Care Physicians' Prostate Cancer Screening Practices: A Vignette-Based Analysis of Screening Men at High Risk.Health services research and managerial epidemiology · 2014Article
- Shared decision-making about colorectal cancer screening: a conceptual framework to guide research.Patient education and counseling · 2013Article
- Prostate-specific antigen testing in men aged 40-64 years: impact of publication of clinical trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2013Article
- Shared decision making in cancer screening and treatment decisions for American Indian and Alaska native communities: can we ethically calibrate interventions to patients' values?Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2012Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesShared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening (PCS) is recommended for physicians and patients due to the uncertainty regarding the risks and benefits of screening.
methodsWe assessed primary care physicians' attitudes and specific factors that may influence the SDM process, including level of training and practice setting. Participants included academic clinicians (n=16), interns/residents (n=84) and community clinicians (n=35). Physicians completed a 26-item survey that assessed attitudes about the SDM process for PCS.
resultsMore physicians endorsed SDM (47.4%) or the patient deciding (35.6%), while few physicians wanted to decide for their patients about screening. However, 54.8% endorsed an annual PSA as the standard of care. Most felt that decisions should be based on full disclosure of the risks and benefits of testing (93.3%), and few believed that the sensitivity and specificity of the PSA was adequate (36.6%). Across all physicians, lack of time, competing health demands, malpractice fears, and patient interest were all commonly cited as potential factors that influence the SDM process. Compared to academic clinicians and interns/residents, community clinicians were more likely to endorse annual screening, to be concerned about malpractice, and to agree that PSA sensitivity and specificity are acceptable.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate physician, patient and systemic factors regarding the PCS decision. Further effort is needed to overcome the barriers of engaging patients in SDM if we want to truly promote effective SDM for PCS, as espoused by national guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21499999PMC7001852What 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.