• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

由社区卫生工作者主导的决策指导促进黑人男性患者及其医疗服务提供者共同参与前列腺癌筛查决策的随机试验。

Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers.

作者信息

Makarov Danil V, Feuer Zachary, Ciprut Shannon, Lopez Natalia Martinez, Fagerlin Angela, Shedlin Michele, Gold Heather T, Li Huilin, Lynch Gina, Warren Rueben, Ubel Peter, Ravenell Joseph E

机构信息

VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, 423 E 23rd St, New York, NY, USA.

Departments of Urology, NYU Langone Health, 227 E 30th St, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

Trials. 2021 Feb 10;22(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05064-4.

DOI:10.1186/s13063-021-05064-4
PMID:33568208
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7876807/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the USA. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) encourages prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions to be based on shared decision-making (SDM) clinician professional judgment, and patient preferences. However, evidence suggests that SDM is underutilized in clinical practice, especially among the most vulnerable patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a community health worker (CHW)-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening among Black men in the primary care setting, with the ultimate aim of improving/optimizing decision quality.

METHODS

We proposed a CHW-led decision-coaching program to facilitate SDM for prostate cancer screening discussions in Black men at a primary care FQHC. This study enrolled Black men who were patients at the participating clinical site and up to 15 providers who cared for them. We estimated to recruit 228 participants, ages 40-69 to be randomized to either (1) a decision aid along with decision coaching on PSA screening from a CHW or (2) receiving a decision aid along with CHW-led interaction on modifying dietary and lifestyle to serve as an attention control. The independent randomization process was implemented within each provider and we controlled for age by dividing patients into two strata: 40-54 years and 55-69 years. This sample size sufficiently powered the detection differences in the primary study outcomes: knowledge, indicative of decision quality, and differences in PSA screening rates. Primary outcome measures for patients will be decision quality and decision regarding whether to undergo PSA screening. Primary outcome measures for providers will be acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. We will examine how decision coaching about prostate cancer screening impact patient-provider communication. These outcomes will be analyzed quantitatively through objective, validated scales and qualitatively through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, and thematic analysis of clinical encounters. Through a conceptual model combining elements of the Preventative Health Care Model (PHM) and Informed Decision-Making Model, we hypothesize that the prostate cancer screening decision coaching intervention will result in a preference-congruent decision and decisional satisfaction. We also hypothesize that this intervention will improve physician satisfaction with counseling patients about prostate cancer screening.

DISCUSSION

Decision coaching is an evidence-based approach to improve decision quality in many clinical contexts, but its efficacy is incompletely explored for PSA screening among Black men in primary care. Our proposal to evaluate a CHW-led decision-coaching program for PSA screening has high potential for scalability and public health impact. Our results will determine the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of a CHW intervention in a community clinic setting in order to inform subsequent widespread dissemination, a critical research area highlighted by USPSTF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered prospectively with the National Institute of Health registry ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), registration number NCT03726320 , on October 31, 2018.

摘要

背景

美国黑人男性受前列腺癌的影响尤为严重,前列腺癌是美国男性中最常见的非皮肤恶性肿瘤。美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)鼓励前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)检测决策应基于共同决策(SDM)、临床医生的专业判断以及患者的偏好。然而,有证据表明,SDM在临床实践中未得到充分利用,尤其是在最脆弱的患者群体中。本研究的目的是评估由社区卫生工作者(CHW)主导的决策指导项目在初级保健环境中促进黑人男性进行前列腺癌筛查的共同决策的效果,最终目标是提高/优化决策质量。

方法

我们提出了一个由CHW主导的决策指导项目,以促进在初级保健FQHC对黑人男性进行前列腺癌筛查讨论的共同决策。本研究招募了在参与临床地点就诊的黑人男性患者以及最多15名照顾他们的医护人员。我们估计招募228名年龄在40 - 69岁的参与者,随机分为两组:(1)接受决策辅助工具以及来自CHW的关于PSA筛查的决策指导;(2)接受决策辅助工具以及由CHW主导的关于改变饮食和生活方式的互动,作为注意力对照。独立随机化过程在每个医护人员内部实施,我们通过将患者分为两个年龄层来控制年龄:40 - 54岁和55 - 69岁。这个样本量足以检测主要研究结果中的差异:知识(表明决策质量)以及PSA筛查率的差异。患者的主要结局指标将是决策质量以及是否接受PSA筛查的决策。医护人员的主要结局指标将是干预措施的可接受性和可行性。我们将研究关于前列腺癌筛查的决策指导如何影响医患沟通。这些结局将通过客观、经过验证的量表进行定量分析,并通过半结构化、深入访谈以及临床会诊的主题分析进行定性分析。通过一个结合预防保健模型(PHM)和知情决策模型要素的概念模型,我们假设前列腺癌筛查决策指导干预将导致符合偏好的决策和决策满意度。我们还假设这种干预将提高医生对为患者提供前列腺癌筛查咨询的满意度。

讨论

决策指导是一种基于证据的方法,可在许多临床环境中提高决策质量,但对于初级保健中的黑人男性进行PSA筛查,其效果尚未得到充分探索。我们评估由CHW主导的PSA筛查决策指导项目的提议具有很高的可扩展性和公共卫生影响潜力。我们的结果将确定CHW干预在社区诊所环境中的效果、成本效益和可持续性,以便为后续的广泛传播提供信息,这是USPSTF强调的一个关键研究领域。

试验注册

该试验于2018年10月31日在美国国立卫生研究院注册中心(www.clinicaltrials.gov)进行前瞻性注册,注册号为NCT03726320。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fa5d/7876807/ed310c156c61/13063_2021_5064_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fa5d/7876807/558881b53b57/13063_2021_5064_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fa5d/7876807/b949c5324726/13063_2021_5064_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fa5d/7876807/ed310c156c61/13063_2021_5064_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fa5d/7876807/558881b53b57/13063_2021_5064_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fa5d/7876807/b949c5324726/13063_2021_5064_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fa5d/7876807/ed310c156c61/13063_2021_5064_Fig3_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers.由社区卫生工作者主导的决策指导促进黑人男性患者及其医疗服务提供者共同参与前列腺癌筛查决策的随机试验。
Trials. 2021 Feb 10;22(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05064-4.
2
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
3
Understanding Barriers to Engagement With a Prostate Cancer Research and Genetic Risk Service Among UK Men of Black African or Black Caribbean Ancestry.了解英国非洲裔或加勒比裔黑人男性参与前列腺癌研究和遗传风险服务的障碍。
Health Expect. 2025 Jun;28(3):e70282. doi: 10.1111/hex.70282.
4
Shared decision-making for people with asthma.哮喘患者的共同决策
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 3;10(10):CD012330. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012330.pub2.
5
Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.提高医疗保健专业人员采用共同决策的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12(5):CD006732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub2.
6
Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.心理健康问题患者的共同决策干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 11;11(11):CD007297. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007297.pub3.
7
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.社区居住的老年人跌倒预防干预措施:系统评价和荟萃分析的益处、危害以及患者的价值观和偏好。
Syst Rev. 2024 Nov 26;13(1):289. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02681-3.
8
Group-based interventions to reduce gambling involvement among male football fans: a synopsis of findings from a feasibility study.基于群体的干预措施以减少男性足球迷的赌博行为:一项可行性研究结果概述
Public Health Res (Southampt). 2025 Jul;13(6):1-24. doi: 10.3310/SWWP9393.
9
Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations.为医疗服务提供者提供的干预措施,以促进临床会诊中以患者为中心的方法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD003267. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003267.pub2.
10
Screening for prostate cancer.前列腺癌筛查
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;2013(1):CD004720. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
End-of-Life Cancer Care Interventions for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Populations in the USA: A Scoping Review.美国针对不同种族和族裔人群的临终癌症护理干预措施:一项范围综述
Cancers (Basel). 2025 Jul 1;17(13):2209. doi: 10.3390/cancers17132209.
2
A pilot randomized clinical trial of a smartphone-based application to support at-home PSA screening and culturally tailored prostate cancer education for African American men: A study protocol.一项基于智能手机应用程序的试点随机临床试验,旨在支持非裔美国男性进行居家前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)筛查以及提供文化定制的前列腺癌教育:一项研究方案。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2024 Dec;147:107737. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2024.107737. Epub 2024 Nov 10.
3

本文引用的文献

1
AUA White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making into Urological Practice.美国泌尿外科学会关于在泌尿外科实践中实施共同决策的白皮书。
Urol Pract. 2016 Sep;3(5):355-363. doi: 10.1016/j.urpr.2015.10.006. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
2
Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, part I: National cancer statistics.《国家癌症报告:第一部分:全国癌症统计数据》
Cancer. 2018 Jul 1;124(13):2785-2800. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31551. Epub 2018 May 22.
3
Informed decision making before prostate-specific antigen screening: Initial results using the American Cancer Society (ACS) Decision Aid (DA) among medically underserved men.
Effects of health education applying role play on decision making in acute myocardial infarction situation among older adults in community.
健康教育应用角色扮演对社区老年人急性心肌梗死情境下决策的影响。
Sci Rep. 2024 Aug 23;14(1):19627. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-70747-2.
4
Patient Communication Preferences for Prostate Cancer Screening Discussions: A Scoping Review.患者对前列腺癌筛查讨论的沟通偏好:范围综述。
Ann Fam Med. 2023 Sep-Oct;21(5):448-455. doi: 10.1370/afm.3011.
5
Disparities in Diagnosis, Treatment Access, and Time to Treatment Among Hispanic Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.西班牙裔转移性前列腺癌男性在诊断、治疗机会和治疗时间方面的差异。
JCO Oncol Pract. 2023 Aug;19(8):645-653. doi: 10.1200/OP.23.00040. Epub 2023 Jun 1.
6
Understanding the Role of Urology Practice Organization and Racial Composition in Prostate Cancer Treatment Disparities.理解泌尿外科实践组织和种族构成在前列腺癌治疗差异中的作用。
JCO Oncol Pract. 2023 May;19(5):e763-e772. doi: 10.1200/OP.22.00147. Epub 2023 Jan 19.
7
Effectiveness of a Community Health Worker-Led Intervention on Knowledge, Perception, and Prostate Cancer Screening among Men in Rural Kenya.肯尼亚农村地区由社区卫生工作者主导的干预措施对男性前列腺癌知识、认知及筛查的效果。
Adv Prev Med. 2022 Aug 8;2022:4621446. doi: 10.1155/2022/4621446. eCollection 2022.
8
Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.决策辅导:帮助人们做出医疗决策。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 8;11(11):CD013385. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013385.pub2.
前列腺特异性抗原筛查前的知情决策:在美国医疗服务不足男性中使用美国癌症协会(ACS)决策辅助工具(DA)的初步结果。
Cancer. 2017 Feb 15;123(4):583-591. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30367. Epub 2016 Oct 11.
4
Advancing Understanding of the Characteristics and Capacity of African American Women Who Serve as Lay Health Advisors in Community-Based Settings.增进对在社区环境中担任非专业健康顾问的非裔美国女性的特征和能力的理解。
Health Educ Behav. 2017 Feb;44(1):153-164. doi: 10.1177/1090198116646365. Epub 2016 Jul 9.
5
Effects of Community-Based Health Worker Interventions to Improve Chronic Disease Management and Care Among Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review.基于社区的卫生工作者干预措施对改善弱势群体慢性病管理与照护的影响:一项系统综述
Am J Public Health. 2016 Apr;106(4):e3-e28. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302987. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
6
Coaching patients in the use of decision and communication aids: RE-AIM evaluation of a patient support program.指导患者使用决策和沟通辅助工具:一项患者支持项目的RE-AIM评估
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 May 28;15:209. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0872-6.
7
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
8
Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions: a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision AIDS.决策辅导在帮助患者准备健康决策方面的作用:一项关于患者决策辅助工具试验中决策辅导的系统评价。
Med Decis Making. 2012 May-Jun;32(3):E22-33. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12443311. Epub 2012 Apr 13.
9
Randomised prostate cancer screening trial: 20 year follow-up.随机前列腺癌筛查试验:20 年随访。
BMJ. 2011 Mar 31;342:d1539. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1539.
10
Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey.乳腺癌、结直肠癌和前列腺癌筛查的决策过程:DECISIONS 调查。
Med Decis Making. 2010 Sep-Oct;30(5 Suppl):53S-64S. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10378701.