7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of decision aid delivery modes in prostate cancer screening: umbrella review and network meta‐analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

          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

          Objective

          To review and compare the efficacy of different delivery modes of decision aids (DAs), including computer‐based, print‐based, multimedia‐based, video‐based, and website‐based on decision‐making outcomes for prostate cancer screening compared to usual care (UC) and among the delivery modes.

          Methods

          PubMed, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Advanced Search, and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) Database were systematically searched from inception to August 2023. The primary outcomes were knowledge level, knowledge scores, participation in shared decision‐making (SDM), decisional conflict, and preference for SDM participation. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of subjects who underwent screening (actual screening utilisation) and the proportion of subjects who intended to be screened (intention to undergo screening). Network and pairwise meta‐analyses were performed using random‐effects models.

          Results

          Seven systematic reviews were included. Network meta‐analysis found that multimedia (relative risk [RR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.24), print (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.23–2.69), and website‐based (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.32–3.01) DAs significantly increased participation in SDM compared to the computer‐based DA. There was a significant reduction in the actual screening utilisation in the computer DA arm compared to the other delivery modes. No significant differences between all delivery modes were noted on knowledge levels, knowledge scores, decisional conflict, preference for SDM participation, and intention to undergo screening. The highest mean surface under the cumulative ranking curve for all primary outcomes showed that website‐based was the most effective delivery mode, followed by print‐based DA. The pairwise meta‐analysis showed a significant increase in participants’ knowledge level, knowledge scores, a reduced intention to undergo screening and actual screening utilisation compared to UC.

          Conclusions

          The findings suggest that different types of DAs have varying levels of effectiveness in increasing knowledge level, knowledge scores, participation in SDM, and influencing screening behaviours. While website‐based DA appeared the most effective, employing the print‐based DA could be a practical solution in settings with limited resources.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

          This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

            The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

              The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                angzenyang@moh.gov.my , angzenyang@gmail.com
                Journal
                BJU Int
                BJU Int
                10.1111/(ISSN)1464-410X
                BJU
                Bju International
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1464-4096
                1464-410X
                14 October 2024
                February 2025
                : 135
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1111/bju.v135.2 )
                : 222-234
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute for Health Systems Research, National Institutes of Health Ministry of Health Malaysia Shah Alam Selangor Malaysia
                [ 2 ] School of Pharmacy Monash University Malaysia Subang Jaya Selangor Malaysia
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: Zen Yang Ang, Institute for Health Systems Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Jalan Setia Murni U13/52, Seksyen U13 Setia Alam, Shah Alam, Selangor 40170, Malaysia.

                e‐mail: angzenyang@ 123456moh.gov.my and angzenyang@ 123456gmail.com

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9716-3591
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7361-6576
                Article
                BJU16545 BJU-2024-0564.R4
                10.1111/bju.16545
                11745987
                39402746
                ed0733c4-6adb-4d77-9d9e-0549132fec31
                © 2024 The Author(s). BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 13, Words: 9379
                Categories
                Review
                Review
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2025
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.5.2 mode:remove_FC converted:20.01.2025

                Urology
                prostate cancer,screening,prostate‐specific antigen,decision support techniques,decision aid

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log