Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7110, USA.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Nov 13;12:130. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-130.
Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions.
We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician.
Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame.
SDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions.
#NCT00630188.
专业协会建议在前列腺癌筛查中采用共同决策(SDM),然而,大多数努力都促进了知情决策而非共同决策。本研究的目的是:1)检验促进 SDM 的前列腺癌筛查干预措施的效果,以及 2)确定将前列腺信息置于其他明确有益的男性健康服务背景下是否会影响决策。
我们对相同的前列腺癌干预措施(是否附加更明确有益的男性健康服务信息)进行了两项独立的随机对照试验。对于每项试验,我们招募了 2 个内科诊所及其感兴趣的医生和没有前列腺癌既往史的男性患者(共 4 个诊所,28 名医生和 128 名男性)。在每个诊所内,我们将男性随机分配至 1)基于视频的决策辅助工具和研究人员主导的辅导会议,或 2)高速公路安全视频。每个诊所的医生都接受了 1 小时的前列腺癌和 SDM 教育课程。为了评估干预效果,我们测量了 SDM 的关键组成部分、筛查意愿和实际筛查情况。在发现结果不因试验而异后,我们将站点数据合并,调整了实践和医生的随机效应。
与注意力对照相比,我们的前列腺癌筛查干预措施增加了男性对筛查是一个决策的看法(绝对差异增加 41%;95%CI 25 至 57%)和对前列腺癌筛查的了解(绝对差异增加 34%;95%CI 19%至 50%),但对男性自我报告的共同决策参与度或他们在首选水平的参与度没有影响。总体而言,干预措施降低了筛查意愿(绝对差异减少 34%;95%CI -50%至 -18%)和实际筛查率(绝对差异减少 22%;95%CI -38%至 -7%),但框架效应无差异。
SDM 干预措施可以增加男性的知识,改变他们对前列腺癌筛查的看法,并减少实际筛查。然而,它们可能无法保证共同决策的增加。
#NCT00630188。