ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2017
Prostate cancer screening decision-making in three states: 2013 behavioral risk factor surveillance system analysis.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital rectal examination and its associated factors in the early detection of prostate cancer: a cross-sectional population-based study.BMC public health · 2019Article
- The Influence of Decision Aids on Prostate Cancer Screening Preferences: A Randomized Survey Study.The Journal of urology · 2018Article
- Prostate cancer surveillance by occupation and industry: the Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC).Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Making the grade: The newest US Preventive Services Task Force prostate cancer screening recommendation.Cancer · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGiven the discordant prostate cancer screening recommendations in the United States, shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important. The objectives of this study were to determine who made the final decision to obtain prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening and identify factors associated with the screening decision made by both patients and their health care providers.
methodsUsing the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from Delaware, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, we calculated weighted percentages of SDM. Associations between the SDM and sociodemographic, lifestyle, access to care, and PSA testing-related factors were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.
resultsThere were 2,248 men aged 40 years or older who ever had a PSA-based screening in these three states. Only 36% of them made their prostate cancer screening decision jointly with their health care provider. Multivariate analyses showed that men who were married/living together or had a college degree and above were more likely to report having SDM than men who were never married or had less than high school education (P = 0.02 and 0.002). Moreover, men whose most recent PSA test occurred within the past year were more likely to report SDM than men who had the test done more than 2 years ago (P = 0.02).
conclusionsThe majority of screening decisions were made by the patient or health care provider alone in these three states, not jointly, as recommended. Our study points to the need to promote SDM among patients and their health care providers before PSA testing.
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.