ArticlePloS one2016
Involving a Citizens' Jury in Decisions on Individual Screening for Prostate Cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- IMPAACT: IMproving the PArticipAtion of older people in policy decision-making on common health CondiTions - a study protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Deciding on cystic fibrosis carrier screening: three citizens' juries and an online survey.European journal of public health · 2018Article
- A Content Analysis of YouTube™ Videos Related to Prostate Cancer.American journal of men's health · 2017Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMost public health agencies and learned societies agree that the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in asymptomatic men should not be recommended, on account of its potential for harm. Yet PSA is still widely used as a screening test and is not being abandoned. This remains a significant public health issue, and citizens' engagement is needed. This study was designed to produce a deliberation on the PSA screening test by a citizens' jury.
methodsFifteen citizens were selected and balanced for sex, age, and education. They received an information booklet and participated in a two-day meeting with experts to reach a deliberation on the question "Should the National Health Service discourage or recommend PSA as an individual screening test for prostate cancer in men 55-69 years old?". A facilitator ran the jurors' discussion.
resultsAll except three of the jurors decided that the National Health Service should discourage the use of PSA as an individual screening test for prostate cancer in 55-69 year-old men. The jury was particularly convinced by the uncertainty of the test outcomes, the utility of the test, and its cost/benefit ratio. Before the meeting 60% of jurors would have recommended the test to a relative, and all the male jurors would have done so. After the meeting these percentages fell to 15% and 12%.
conclusionsThis experience confirms the feasibility and effectiveness of delegating to a group of citizens the responsibility to decide on public health issues on behalf of the community. Public health authorities should invest in information campaigns aimed at the public and in educational initiatives for physicians. This also provided an opportunity to disseminate information on screening, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment.
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.