Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 3/2017

01-03-2017 | Brief report

Prostate cancer screening decision-making in three states: 2013 behavioral risk factor surveillance system analysis

Authors: Jun Li, Ingrid J. Hall, Guixiang Zhao

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Given the discordant prostate cancer screening recommendations in the United States, shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important. The objectives of this study were to determine who made the final decision to obtain prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening and identify factors associated with the screening decision made by both patients and their health care providers.

Methods

Using the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from Delaware, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, we calculated weighted percentages of SDM. Associations between the SDM and sociodemographic, lifestyle, access to care, and PSA testing-related factors were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

Results

There were 2,248 men aged 40 years or older who ever had a PSA-based screening in these three states. Only 36% of them made their prostate cancer screening decision jointly with their health care provider. Multivariate analyses showed that men who were married/living together or had a college degree and above were more likely to report having SDM than men who were never married or had less than high school education (P = 0.02 and 0.002). Moreover, men whose most recent PSA test occurred within the past year were more likely to report SDM than men who had the test done more than 2 years ago (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

The majority of screening decisions were made by the patient or health care provider alone in these three states, not jointly, as recommended. Our study points to the need to promote SDM among patients and their health care providers before PSA testing.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Force USPST (2012) Talking With Your Patients About Screening for Prostate Cancer Force USPST (2012) Talking With Your Patients About Screening for Prostate Cancer
2.
go back to reference Moyer VA, Force USPST (2012) Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 157:120–134CrossRefPubMed Moyer VA, Force USPST (2012) Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 157:120–134CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of P (2013) Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Annals of internal medicine. 158: 761–769.CrossRefPubMed Qaseem A, Barry MJ, Denberg TD, Owens DK, Shekelle P, Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of P (2013) Screening for prostate cancer: a guidance statement from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Annals of internal medicine. 158: 761–769.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D et al (2014) Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 64:30–51CrossRefPubMed Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D et al (2014) Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 64:30–51CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
go back to reference Han PK, Kobrin S, Breen N et al (2013) National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening. Ann Fam Med 11:306–314CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Han PK, Kobrin S, Breen N et al (2013) National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening. Ann Fam Med 11:306–314CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Hoffman RM, Couper MP, Zikmund-Fisher BJ et al (2009) Prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study). Arch Intern Med 169:1611–1618PubMed Hoffman RM, Couper MP, Zikmund-Fisher BJ et al (2009) Prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study). Arch Intern Med 169:1611–1618PubMed
9.
go back to reference Hoffman RM, Elmore JG, Fairfield KM, Gerstein BS, Levin CA, Pignone MP (2014) Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions: results from a national survey. Am J Prev Med 47:251–259CrossRefPubMed Hoffman RM, Elmore JG, Fairfield KM, Gerstein BS, Levin CA, Pignone MP (2014) Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions: results from a national survey. Am J Prev Med 47:251–259CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Li J, Berkowitz Z, Richards TB, Richardson LC (2013) Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing with men older than 70 years. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM 26:401–408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Li J, Berkowitz Z, Richards TB, Richardson LC (2013) Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing with men older than 70 years. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM 26:401–408CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, et al. (2013) Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Med 173: 1704–1712. Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, et al. (2013) Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Med 173: 1704–1712.
12.
go back to reference Volk RJ, Hawley ST, Kneuper S et al (2007) Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 33:428–434CrossRefPubMed Volk RJ, Hawley ST, Kneuper S et al (2007) Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 33:428–434CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Wilkes M, Srinivasan M, Cole G, Tardif R, Richardson LC, Plescia M (2013) Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening. J Gen Internal Med 28:1410–1419CrossRef Wilkes M, Srinivasan M, Cole G, Tardif R, Richardson LC, Plescia M (2013) Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening. J Gen Internal Med 28:1410–1419CrossRef
14.
16.
go back to reference Chan EC, Vernon SW, Ahn C, Greisinger A (2004) Do men know that they have had a prostate-specific antigen test? Accuracy of self-reports of testing at 2 sites. Am J Public Health 94:1336–1338CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chan EC, Vernon SW, Ahn C, Greisinger A (2004) Do men know that they have had a prostate-specific antigen test? Accuracy of self-reports of testing at 2 sites. Am J Public Health 94:1336–1338CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Wunderlich T, Cooper G, Divine G et al (2010) Inconsistencies in patient perceptions and observer ratings of shared decision making: the case of colorectal cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns 80:358–363CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wunderlich T, Cooper G, Divine G et al (2010) Inconsistencies in patient perceptions and observer ratings of shared decision making: the case of colorectal cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns 80:358–363CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Prostate cancer screening decision-making in three states: 2013 behavioral risk factor surveillance system analysis
Authors
Jun Li
Ingrid J. Hall
Guixiang Zhao
Publication date
01-03-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-017-0860-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Cancer Causes & Control 3/2017 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine