Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27807905›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017

Similar perspectives on prostate cancer screening value and new guidelines across patient demographic and PSA level subgroups: A qualitative study.

Melissa R Partin, Sarah E Lillie, Katie M White, Timothy J Wilt, Kristin L Chrouser, Brent C Taylor, Diana J Burgess

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa R PartinCenter for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR), Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sarah E LillieCenter for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR), Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Katie M WhiteSchool of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Timothy J WiltCenter for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR), Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Kristin L ChrouserDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Brent C TaylorCenter for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR), Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Diana J BurgessCenter for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR), Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Minneapolis VA Health Care System · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

VA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening for all men.

objectiveTo inform educational materials addressing patient questions and concerns about the 2012 USPSTF guidelines, we sought to: (i) characterize patient perceptions about prostate cancer screening benefits, harms and recommendations against screening, and (ii) compare perceptions across race, age and PSA level subgroups.

methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with a sample of 26 men from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, stratified by race (African American, other), age (50-69, 70-84) and PSA level (documented PSA level ≥4 in Veterans Health Administration electronic medical records vs no such documentation). We used an inductive approach informed by grounded theory to analyse transcribed interviews.

resultsMost men in all subgroups expressed misperceptions about the benefits of prostate cancer screening and had difficulty identifying harms associated with screening. In all subgroups, reactions to recommendations against screening ranged from unconditionally receptive to highly resistant. Some men in every subgroup initially resistant to the idea said they would accept a recommendation to discontinue screening from their provider.

conclusionsGiven the similarity of perceptions and reactions across subgroups, materials targeted by race, age and PSA level may not be necessary. Efforts to inform decision making about prostate cancer screening should address misperceptions about benefits and lack of awareness of harms. Provider perspectives and recommendations may play a pivotal role in shaping patient reactions to new guidelines.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesAgedAged, 80 and overDemographyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsQualitative ResearchUnited StatesProstate-Specific Antigencancer screeningpatient educationpractice guidelineprostate cancerqualitative researchrace

Identifiers

PMID27807905
PMCPMC5513007
OpenAlexW2546715674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.