ArticleJournal of registry management2026
Providing Decision Support for Prostate Cancer Through Cancer Registry Contacts.
Article in Journal of registry management, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate providing decision support access directly to patients, using contact information from a state cancer registry. Methods: The North Carolina (NC) Cancer Registry provided contacts for 720 NC men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their physicians. Letters to patients were to arrive at least 33 days after the biopsy. The patient letters included access codes for the Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), a web-based decision aid with efficacy in reducing decisional conflict. Follow-up calls were made if there was no access to the website. Our goals were 50% access, with 50% completing the intervention. Randomly selected users and non-users were contacted for a telephone interview to assess barriers and facilitators to decision aid access. Results: Of 720, 95 (13.2%) patients reported making a treatment decision before receiving the letter and were removed from the denominator. Eighty-four of 720 (13.4%; CI 13.4 - 16.4) accessed P3P and of those, 82 of 84 (97.6%) completed the questionnaire and 58 of 82 (69%) completed the intervention. White race predicted access to the decision aid. About half of 20 users recounted by telephone that the letter had arrived late; the decision had already been made. The users recounted benefits of the intervention: plain language, clarified concerns, confirmed choice. Conclusion: Providing access to P3P through a cancer registry resulted in a far lower access rate than expected. User completion rates of the intervention exceeded our expectations. The registry-required period between biopsy date and allowed patient contact may have led to a high ineligibility rate, and/or low access rates to the website.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42699365PMC13544405What 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.