6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Similar perspectives on prostate cancer screening value and new guidelines across patient demographic and PSA level subgroups: A qualitative study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force ( USPSTF) recommended against prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA)‐based prostate cancer screening for all men.

          Objective

          To inform educational materials addressing patient questions and concerns about the 2012 USPSTF guidelines, we sought to: (i) characterize patient perceptions about prostate cancer screening benefits, harms and recommendations against screening, and (ii) compare perceptions across race, age and PSA level subgroups.

          Methods

          We conducted qualitative interviews with a sample of 26 men from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, stratified by race (African American, other), age (50‐69, 70‐84) and PSA level (documented PSA level ≥4 in Veterans Health Administration electronic medical records vs no such documentation). We used an inductive approach informed by grounded theory to analyse transcribed interviews.

          Results

          Most men in all subgroups expressed misperceptions about the benefits of prostate cancer screening and had difficulty identifying harms associated with screening. In all subgroups, reactions to recommendations against screening ranged from unconditionally receptive to highly resistant. Some men in every subgroup initially resistant to the idea said they would accept a recommendation to discontinue screening from their provider.

          Conclusions

          Given the similarity of perceptions and reactions across subgroups, materials targeted by race, age and PSA level may not be necessary. Efforts to inform decision making about prostate cancer screening should address misperceptions about benefits and lack of awareness of harms. Provider perspectives and recommendations may play a pivotal role in shaping patient reactions to new guidelines.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          The Discovery of Grounded Theory

          <p>Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and how theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss address the equally Important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data--systematically obtained and analyzed in social research--can be furthered. The discovery of theory from data--grounded theory--is a major task confronting sociology, for such a theory fits empirical situations, and is understandable to sociologists and laymen alike. Most important, it provides relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications.</p><p>In Part I of the book, Generation Theory by Comparative Analysis, the authors present a strategy whereby sociologists can facilitate the discovery of grounded theory, both substantive and formal. This strategy involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups. In Part II, The Flexible Use of Data, the generation of theory from qualitative, especially documentary, and quantitative data Is considered. In Part III, Implications of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss examine the credibility of grounded theory.</p><p>The Discovery of Grounded Theory is directed toward improving social scientists' capacity for generating theory that will be relevant to their research. While aimed primarily at sociologists, it will be useful to anyone Interested In studying social phenomena--political, educational, economic, industrial-- especially If their studies are based on qualitative data.</p></p>
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010.

            In 2009, the American Cancer Society (ACS) Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee began the process of a complete update of recommendations for early prostate cancer detection. A series of systematic evidence reviews was conducted focusing on evidence related to the early detection of prostate cancer, test performance, harms of therapy for localized prostate cancer, and shared and informed decision making in prostate cancer screening. The results of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, and deliberations about the evidence occurred at committee meetings and during conference calls. On the basis of the evidence and a consensus process, the Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee developed the guideline, and a writing committee drafted a guideline document that was circulated to the entire committee for review and revision. The document was then circulated to peer reviewers for feedback, and finally to the ACS Mission Outcomes Committee and the ACS Board of Directors for approval. The ACS recommends that asymptomatic men who have at least a 10-year life expectancy have an opportunity to make an informed decision with their health care provider about screening for prostate cancer after they receive information about the uncertainties, risks, and potential benefits associated with prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening should not occur without an informed decision-making process. Men at average risk should receive this information beginning at age 50 years. Men in higher risk groups should receive this information before age 50 years. Men should either receive this information directly from their health care providers or be referred to reliable and culturally appropriate sources. Patient decision aids are helpful in preparing men to make a decision whether to be tested. Copyright 2010 American Cancer Society, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States.

              Unlike reduced mortality rates, improved survival rates and increased early detection do not prove that cancer screening tests save lives. Nevertheless, these 2 statistics are often used to promote screening. To learn whether primary care physicians understand which statistics provide evidence about whether screening saves lives. Parallel-group, randomized trial (randomization controlled for order effect only), conducted by Internet survey. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00981019) National sample of U.S. primary care physicians from a research panel maintained by Harris Interactive (79% cooperation rate). 297 physicians who practiced both inpatient and outpatient medicine were surveyed in 2010, and 115 physicians who practiced exclusively outpatient medicine were surveyed in 2011. Physicians received scenarios about the effect of 2 hypothetical screening tests: The effect was described as improved 5-year survival and increased early detection in one scenario and as decreased cancer mortality and increased incidence in the other. Physicians' recommendation of screening and perception of its benefit in the scenarios and general knowledge of screening statistics. Primary care physicians were more enthusiastic about the screening test supported by irrelevant evidence (5-year survival increased from 68% to 99%) than about the test supported by relevant evidence (cancer mortality reduced from 2 to 1.6 in 1000 persons). When presented with irrelevant evidence, 69% of physicians recommended the test, compared with 23% when presented with relevant evidence (P < 0.001). When asked general knowledge questions about screening statistics, many physicians did not distinguish between irrelevant and relevant screening evidence; 76% versus 81%, respectively, stated that each of these statistics proves that screening saves lives (P = 0.39). About one half (47%) of the physicians incorrectly said that finding more cases of cancer in screened as opposed to unscreened populations "proves that screening saves lives." Physicians' recommendations for screening were based on hypothetical scenarios, not actual practice. Most primary care physicians mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives. Few correctly recognized that only reduced mortality in a randomized trial constitutes evidence of the benefit of screening. Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Melissa.partin@va.gov
                Journal
                Health Expect
                Health Expect
                10.1111/(ISSN)1369-7625
                HEX
                Health Expectations : An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1369-6513
                1369-7625
                02 November 2016
                August 2017
                : 20
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/hex.2017.20.issue-4 )
                : 779-787
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR) Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System Minneapolis MN USA
                [ 2 ] Department of Medicine University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN USA
                [ 3 ] School of Public Health University of Minnesota 1 Veterans Drive Minneapolis MN USA
                [ 4 ] Department of Urology University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN USA
                [ 5 ] Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System Minneapolis MN USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Melissa R. Partin, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

                Email: Melissa.partin@ 123456va.gov

                Article
                HEX12517
                10.1111/hex.12517
                5513007
                27807905
                c96bf535-db7e-4853-b899-41e2ee97167b
                © 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 October 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 9, Words: 6868
                Funding
                Funded by: Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development (VA HSR&D) Center of Innovation
                Award ID: HFP 98‐001
                Funded by: VA HSR&D Research Career Scientist
                Award ID: RCS 10‐185
                Funded by: VA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
                Funded by: VA Undersecretary of Health Award
                Categories
                Original Research Paper
                Original Research Papers
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                hex12517
                August 2017
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.1.4 mode:remove_FC converted:17.07.2017

                Health & Social care
                cancer screening,patient education,practice guideline,prostate cancer,qualitative research,race

                Comments

                Comment on this article