ArticlePatient education and counseling2019
Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2019. 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.
- Prostate Cancer-Research Advances in Early Detection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
- Chimeric cytokine receptor enhancing PSMA-CAR-T cell-mediated prostate cancer regression.Cancer biology & therapy · 2020Article
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
objectiveWe aimed to assess to what extent men make informed choices in the context of prostate cancer screening and how written material contributes to that process.
methodsWe developed a leaflet describing prostate cancer screening, and a questionnaire consisting of knowledge, attitude, and intended screening uptake components to assess informed decision-making. The leaflet and questionnaire were pilot-tested among men of the target population, adapted accordingly, and sent to 761 members of an online research panel. We operationalized whether the leaflet was read as spending one minute on the leaflet page and by a self-reported answer of respondents.
resultsThe response rate was 66% (501/761). The group who read the leaflet (n = 342) correctly answered a knowledge item significantly more often (10.9 versus 8.8; p < 0.001) than those who did not read the leaflet (n = 159), and made more informed choices (73% versus 56%; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in attitude and intended screening uptake between both groups.
conclusionHaving read the leaflet could be one of the factors associated with increased levels of knowledge and informed decision-making. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study showed that increasing knowledge and supporting informed decision-making with written material are feasible in prostate cancer screening.
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.