ArticleBMJ open2018
Primary goals, information-giving and men's understanding: a qualitative study of Australian and UK doctors' varied communication about PSA screening.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- Article
- Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
- Article
- General practitioners' (GPs) understanding and views on breast density in Australia: a qualitative interview study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Delivering the unexpected-Information needs for PSA screening from Men's perspective: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Attitudes Toward and Use of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Urologists and General Practitioners in Germany: A Survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Factors Related to Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: Retrospective Cohort Study of 120,587 French Men Over the Age of 50 Years.JMIR public health and surveillance · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectives(1) To characterise variation in general practitioners' (GPs') accounts of communicating with men about prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (2) to characterise GPs' reasons for communicating as they do and (3) to explain why and under what conditions GP communication approaches vary. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingA grounded theory study. We interviewed 69 GPs consulting in primary care practices in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29).
resultsGPs explained their communication practices in relation to their primary goals. In Australia, three different communication goals were reported: to encourage asymptomatic men to either have a PSA test, or not test, or alternatively, to support men to make their own decision. As well as having different primary goals, GPs aimed to provide different information (from comprehensive to strongly filtered) and to support men to develop different kinds of understanding, from population-level to 'gist' understanding. Taking into account these three dimensions (goals, information, understanding) and building on Entwistle
conclusionGPs' reported approach to communicating about prostate cancer screening varies according to three dimensions-their primary goal, information provision preference and understanding sought-and in response to specific practice situations. If GP communication about PSA screening is to become more standardised in Australia, it is likely that each of these dimensions will require attention in policy and practice support interventions.
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.