The Effectiveness of Shared Compared to Informed Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening in a High-Risk African American Population: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the United States in African Americans (AA) are higher than in Caucasians. Eastern Cuyahoga County in Ohio is majority AA and is considered an underserved population particularly vulnerable to healthcare disparities. There is a paucity of data about shared decision making among high-risk AA men with regard to prostate cancer screening. This study aims to examine shared versus informed decision making (SDM versus IDM) in a randomized, control trial among a large, high-risk AA population.

METHODS

Patients were included in annual one-day outreach events, each held over 3 years (2017-2019), and were randomized at each event into IDM (control) and SDM (investigational) groups and then were offered screening via prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE). The primary endpoints were proportion of participants over 40 who did not demonstrate decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening measured by the SURE score, as well as change of knowledge score about prostate cancer screening.

RESULTS

Overall, 175 patients were enrolled in the trial; 79 in the SDM arm and 96 in the IDM arm. The investigational (SDM) arm had 3/79 (3.9%) conflict versus 6/96 (6.4%) in the control (IDM) arm ( = 0.74). With regard to knowledge improvement, the SDM cohort demonstrated improvement following educational tools for 66/79 (81%) of participants versus 76/96 (79%) in the IDM cohort ( = 0.85). There was no difference in the proportion (63%) of participants in either group who found the information very helpful (using a Likert scale).

CONCLUSIONS

Our education-based study showed no significant difference between SDM and IDM with regard to decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening. The study also demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge about prostate cancer screening in a high-risk AA population in both groups. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations; however, the study can serve as a benchmark for future studies in this very important topic.