Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2015
Impact of a printed decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening: a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Prostate Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018Pooled it
- The effect of information on prostate cancer screening decision process: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- Factors Influencing the Implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Primary Care: A Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Attitudes Toward Genomic Testing and Prostate Cancer Research Among Black Men.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018Article
- Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature.BMJ quality & safety · 2018Article
- Impact of a Prostate Specific Antigen Screening Decision Aid on Clinic Function.Urology practice · 2017Article
- A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids.MDM policy & practiceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite recommendations against systematic screening for prostate cancer, 70% of patients still request prostate-specific antigen testing.
aimTo assess the impact of a decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening. DESIGN AND
settingRandomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups in 86 general practices in urban and rural areas in France.
methodMales aged 50-75 years were randomised to receive either the decision aid (intervention group) or usual care (control group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients' intending to undergo prostate cancer screening, assessed immediately after reading the decision aid. The reasons underlying their choice were elicited and the proportion of patients citing each reason to undergo, or not undergo, prostate cancer screening were compared between the two arms.
resultsA total of 1170 patients were randomised (588 in the intervention arm) from November 2012 to February 2013. The proportion of patients who intended to be tested for prostate cancer in the intervention arm (123 patients [20.9%]) was significantly reduced compared with the control arm (57 patients [9.8%]) (difference 11.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.0 to 15.2, P<0.0001). In the intervention group, a lower proportion of individuals expressed that cancer screening would protect them from the disease, compared with the control group (P<0.0001), while a greater proportion of individuals stated that prostate cancer screening would not benefit their health (P<0.0001) and may involve procedures with harmful side effects (P = 0.0005).
conclusionThe decision aid improved participants' informed decision making and reduced their intent to undergo prostate cancer screening.
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.