ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Primary care physicians' use of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Urologists' and general practitioners' knowledge, beliefs and practice relevant for opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Adult Patients' Perspectives on the Benefits and Harms of Overused Screening Tests: a Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2015Trial
- Trial
- Informed decision making among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer survivors: a pilot randomized trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2014Trial
- Article
- Exploring shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening within primary health care settings in Portugal: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- PSAzing up patient care: a quality improvement project for informed cancer screening.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Article
- A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators of shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in primary care: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Review
- Ethnic Differences Among Black Men in Prostate Cancer Knowledge and Screening: a Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2022Article
- Associations of Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Testing in the US Population: Results from a National Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of community health · 2021Article
- Does shared decision making increase prostate screening uptake in countries with a low prevalence of prostate cancer?African health sciences · 2020Article
- Exnovation of Low Value Care: A Decade of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Practices.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019Observational
- Talking About Your Prostate: Perspectives from Providers and Community Members.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Prostate cancer screening among family physicians in Ontario: An update on attitudes and current practice.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLeading professional organizations acknowledge the importance of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening. We describe primary care physicians' reports of their prescreening discussions about the potential harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening.
methodsMembers of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network responded to a survey that included (1) an indicator of practice styles related to discussing harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen testing and providing a screening recommendation or letting patients decide, and (2) indicators reflecting physicians' beliefs about prostate cancer screening. The survey was conducted between July 2007 and January 2008.
resultsOf 426 physicians 246 (57.7%) completed the survey questionnaire. Compared with physicians who ordered screening without discussion (24.3%), physicians who discussed harms and benefits with patients and then let them decide (47.7%) were more likely to endorse beliefs that scientific evidence does not support screening, that patients should be told about the lack of evidence, and that patients have a right to know the limitations of screening; they were also less likely to endorse the belief that there was no need to educate patients because they wanted to be screened. Concerns about medicolegal risk associated with not screening were more common among physicians who discussed the harms and benefits and recommended screening than among physicians who discussed screening and let their patients decide.
conclusionsMuch of the variability in physicians' use of an informed decision-making process can be attributed to beliefs about screening. Concerns about medicolegal risk remain an important barrier for shared decision making.
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.