ArticleBMJ open2016
Doctors' perspectives on PSA testing illuminate established differences in prostate cancer screening rates between Australia and the UK: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a cohort study in England, 1998-2017.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Trial
- Diagnosis of prostate cancer in primary care: navigating updated clinical guidance.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Low-Value Care: Convergence and Challenges Comment on "Key Factors That Promote Low-Value Care: Views From Experts From the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands".International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- PSMA PET-CT in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- General practitioners' reflections on using PSA for diagnosis of prostate cancer. A qualitative study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Determinants for the use and de-implementation of low-value care in health care: a scoping review.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- General practitioners' approaches to prostate-specific antigen testing in the north-east of the Netherlands.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Why clinicians overtest: development of a thematic framework.BMC health services research · 2020Review
- Article
- Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2018Article
- Article
- The attitudes and beliefs of general practitioners towards clinical practice guidelines: a qualitative study in Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.Asia Pacific family medicine · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine how general practitioners (GPs) in the UK and GPs in Australia explain their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing practices and to illuminate how these explanations are similar and how they are different.
designA grounded theory study.
settingPrimary care practices in Australia and the UK.
participants69 GPs in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29). We included GPs of varying ages, sex, clinical experience and patient populations. All GPs interested in participating in the study were included.
resultsGPs' accounts revealed fundamental differences in whether and how prostate cancer screening occurred in their practice and in the broader context within which they operate. The history of prostate screening policy, organisational structures and funding models appeared to drive more prostate screening in Australia and less in the UK. In Australia, screening processes and decisions were mostly at the discretion of individual clinicians, and varied considerably, whereas the accounts of UK GPs clearly reflected a consistent, organisationally embedded approach based on local evidence-based recommendations to discourage screening.
conclusionsThe GP accounts suggested that healthcare systems, including historical and current organisational and funding structures and rules, collectively contribute to how and why clinicians use the PSA test and play a significant role in creating the mindlines that GPs employ in their clinic. Australia's recently released consensus guidelines may support more streamlined and consistent care. However, if GP mindlines and thus routine practice in Australia are to shift, to ultimately reduce unnecessary or harmful prostate screening, it is likely that other important drivers at all levels of the screening process will need to be addressed.
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.