Trial reportPsycho-oncology2014
Randomized trial of print messaging: the role of the partner and monitoring style in promoting provider discussions about prostate cancer screening among African American men.
Trial report in Psycho-oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Knowledge of prostate cancer presentation, etiology, and screening practices among women: a mixed-methods systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Medical Mistrust on Prostate Cancer Screening: A mixed method study among African Americans, Caribbean immigrants and African immigrants.Medical research archives · 2024Article
- Prostate Cancer Screening among High-Risk Black Men.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNP · 2018Article
- African American Women's Involvement in Promoting Informed Decision-Making for Prostate Cancer Screening Among Their Partners/Spouses.American journal of men's health · 2018Article
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
objectiveAlthough African American (AA) men are at elevated risk for prostate cancer, medical guidelines do not present consistent screening recommendations for this group. However, all guidelines stress the need for screening decision making with a provider. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a brochure for the female partners of AA men, designed to help promote such discussion on the part of their mates. We also explored the effect of the partner's monitoring style (i.e., the extent to which the partner typically attends to health threats) on promoting discussion.
methodsFemale partners of AA men (N = 231) were randomized to receive either a prostate cancer screening Centers for Disease Control brochure for AA men, combined with a 'partner' brochure containing strategies to promote men's initiation of a provider visit to discuss screening, or the Centers for Disease Control brochure only and completed preintervention and post-intervention surveys online.
resultsThe message groups did not differ on taking active steps to engage in provider discussion: relative risk ratio (RRR) = 0.99, p = .98; thinking about it: RRR = 1.13, p = .74. However, among partners who received the partner brochure, monitoring style was associated with 'thinking about initiating a provider visit' on the part of the mate (RRR = 1.74, p < .01). Across conditions, monitoring style was also associated with 'taking active steps to initiate a provider visit' on the part of the mate (RRR = 1.38, p < .05).
conclusionsHigh monitoring partners may be effective in influencing their AA mates to initiate provider discussion, particularly when tailored messaging is provided.
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.