ArticleBMC primary care2026
Exploring shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening within primary health care settings in Portugal: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to assess how Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) in Portugal currently approach opportunistic prostate cancer (PCa) screening using Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing, and to explore variations in both screening and shared decision-making (SDM) practices.
methodsAn electronic survey was distributed in 25 Health Centers in Portugal between June 2024 and June 2025. The questionnaire assessed respondents' demographic and practice characteristics, PSA screening criteria and frequency, implementation of SDM, knowledge and use of decision aids, and urology referral patterns. Associations between provider characteristics and screening practices were analyzed using Pearson chi-square or Fisher's exact tests.
resultsA total of 107 PCPs participated in the study, the majority being female (81.3%) and under 40 years old (72.9%). Those with less than 10 years of experience were more likely to adjust PSA testing frequency based on initial PSA levels, especially for men aged 50-59 (p = 0.015) and 60-74 (p = 0.004). Routine screening of younger men or those over 75 was uncommon unless specific clinical factors were present. National guidelines were the primary influence on clinical practice (75.7%), particularly among less experienced physicians (p = 0.027). In terms of SDM, most PCPs explained PSA testing (80.4%), but only 64.5% consistently discussed its benefits and risks or explored patient preferences, with those in the South region of Portugal more likely to do so (p = 0.012 and p = 0.002 respectively) than those in the North/Centre. Decision aid awareness and use were low; only 6.5% reported having used them, while 72% were unfamiliar with these tools. Most referrals to urology were triggered by abnormal transrectal ultrasound findings (72%) rather than elevated PSA alone (16.8%). Full support for population-based PCa screening was limited (12.2%), and male physicians were significantly more likely to endorse it (p = 0.007).
conclusionsPCa screening practices among Portuguese PCPs remain a complex area of primary care, characterized by variability in clinical approaches, inconsistent guideline adherence, and limited application of SDM. Despite general awareness, notable gaps persist in the use of decision aids and evidence-based referral criteria. These results highlight the need for clearer national guidance and greater support for individualized, patient-centered screening strategies.
trial registrationnot applicable.
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.