Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40778020›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in urology2023

Controlled trial of decision support for men with early-stage prostate cancer: brief research report of effects on patient knowledge.

Jeffrey K Belkora, Jeanette M Broering, John Neuhaus, Ali Zargham, Tia Weinberg, John S Witte, Stacey A Kenfield, Erin L Van Blarigan, Matthew R Cooperberg, Peter R Carroll and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Jeffrey K BelkoraInstitute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Jeanette M BroeringDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
John NeuhausDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Ali ZarghamDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Tia WeinbergInstitute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
John S WitteDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Stacey A KenfieldDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Erin L Van BlariganDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Matthew R CooperbergDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Peter R CarrollDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.
June M ChanDepartment of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A single-arm pre-post pilot study in an academic setting found that pre-consultation decision support was associated with improved patient knowledge among men with early-stage prostate cancer. We now report on exploratory analyses from a controlled study featuring patients from both academic and community settings. Methods: We enrolled 58 men to usual care and 61 men to the intervention. We evaluated whether the intervention was associated with patients answering key knowledge items correctly just before their urology visit. Results: Just prior to the urology visit, 39/56 or 70% in the intervention group replied correctly to key knowledge items, compared to 31/55 or 56% in the usual care group (p=0.15). At baseline, the intervention group started with 42/60 or 70% correct and the usual care group started with 28/56 or 50% (p=0.03). This imbalance at baseline created a ceiling effect: more men in the usual care group had room to improve on their knowledge scores. Indeed, seven men moved from incorrect to correct in the usual care group, versus 5 in the intervention group; and five men in the intervention group moved from correct to incorrect versus 3 in the usual care group (p=0.44). Discussion: In addition to small sample size, reasons for the null findings may include clustering of highly educated participants at the academic site combined with over-representation of academic site participants in the intervention group. We confirmed, from the pilot study, the feasibility of using pre-health student interns as health coaches. Future research should explore whether increasing adoption of telehealth will improve the feasibility of delivering pre-visit decision support in community settings.

Indexed as

active surveillancedecision aiddecision supporthealth coachingpatient educationpersonalized health careprostate cancerservice learning internships and co-ops

Identifiers

PMID40778020
PMCPMC12327255

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.