Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2012
Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials.
Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00630188 (Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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.
Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening: a Practice-Based Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Are cancer-related decision aids appropriate for socially disadvantaged patients? A systematic review of US randomized controlled trials.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Decision aid and cost compensation influence uptake of PSA-based early detection without affecting decisional conflict: a cluster randomised trial.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.Cancers · 2023Review
- Effectiveness of Shared Decision-making Training Programs for Health Care Professionals Using Reflexivity Strategies: Secondary Analysis of a Systematic Review.JMIR medical education · 2022Review
- Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Review
- Are shared decision making studies well enough described to be replicated? Secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.PloS one · 2022Article
- Does shared decision making increase prostate screening uptake in countries with a low prevalence of prostate cancer?African health sciences · 2020Article
- Clinical Ontologies Improve Case Finding of Primary Biliary Cholangitis in UK Primary and Secondary Care.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Integrating patient perspectives in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study examining potentials within the rare disease information exchange process in practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Systematic evaluation of written health information on PSA based screening in Germany.PloS one · 2019Article
- Limit, lean or listen? A typology of low-value care that gives direction in de-implementation.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018Article
- Article
- What's new in screening in 2015?Current opinion in urology · 2016Review
- The Effect of Health Belief Model-Based Education on Knowledge and Prostate Cancer Screening Behaviors: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProfessional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions.
methodsWe conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician.
resultsCompared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame.
conclusionsSDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions.
trial registration#NCT00630188.
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.