IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v2y2009i3p191-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren McCormack
  • Pamela Williams-Piehota
  • Carla Bann

Abstract

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial because of uncertainty about whether it reduces mortality and whether the potential benefits outweigh the harms. Given these uncertainties, many medical associations recommend using an informed decision-making (IDM) process for making decisions about PSA screening, so that men can make well informed decisions that reflect their values and preferences. Objective: The aim of this paper was to describe the communication exchange between men and their providers regarding PSA screening and the outcomes associated with having a discussion about screening from the patient perspective. Methods: We evaluated survey results obtained at baseline and approximately 12 months post-intervention. Baseline data collection took place in community-based organizations, and follow-up data were collected by mail. Men between 40 and 80 years of age who had not been diagnosed with prostate cancer were eligible for the study. We implemented a multicomponent, community-based intervention designed to help men make informed decisions about PSA screening. Primary outcome measures included characteristics of patient-provider discussions, screening behavior, feeling informed and satisfied, and patients’ preferred and actual levels of involvement in screening decisions and concordance between the two. Results: Overall, 59% of men (220 of 373) had a discussion with a healthcare professional about the PSA screening test. Older men (those aged ≥50 years), Black men, and those who were married were more likely to talk to a provider. When a discussion did occur, two out of three men said that the discussion affected their decision making, and one-quarter changed their screening choice as a result. According to patients, there was apparent variation regarding the extent to which providers recommended the PSA test: 68% of providers recommended it and 3% did not recommend it. One in ten men said that the provider ordered the test without making a recommendation, while 15% of men said that providers did not make a recommendation and wanted the patient to decide. We found that the discussion between the patient and the provider about PSA screening was significantly associated with a greater probability of feeling informed and higher levels of satisfaction with the decision that was made. Most men preferred to be and were involved in the PSA screening decision collaboratively with their providers. When preferred and actual levels of involvement were concordant (i.e. men participated at their preferred level) and when men asked questions, men reported feeling more informed and satisfied about the screening decision. Conclusion: Ongoing education about the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation with respect to PSA screening should occur not only at the patient level but also at the provider level. More widespread adoption of the IDM process, which inherently involves building a patient’s self-efficacy and skills needed to engage in it, is likely to take time. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2009

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren McCormack & Pamela Williams-Piehota & Carla Bann, 2009. "Behind Closed Doors: What Happens when Patients and Providers Talk about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(3), pages 191-201, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:2:y:2009:i:3:p:191-201
    DOI: 10.2165/11312730-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11312730-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11312730-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chan, E.C.Y. & Vernon, S.W. & 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," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(8), pages 1336-1338.
    2. Thompson, Andrew G.H., 2007. "The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1297-1310, March.
    3. Chan, E.C.Y. & Vernon, S.W. & O'Donnell, F.T. & Ahn, C. & Greisinger, A. & Aga, D.W., 2003. "Informed Consent for Cancer Screening with Prostate-Specific Antigen: How Well Are Men Getting the Message?," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(5), pages 779-785.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Dagrunn N Dyrstad & Kristin A Laugaland & Marianne Storm, 2015. "An observational study of older patients’ participation in hospital admission and discharge – exploring patient and next of kin perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(11-12), pages 1693-1706, June.
    3. Allen, Jennifer D. & Kennedy, Mark & Wilson-Glover, Athene & Gilligan, Timothy D., 2007. "African-American men's perceptions about prostate cancer: Implications for designing educational interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 2189-2200, June.
    4. Marit By Rise & Aslak Steinsbekk, 2016. "Long Term Effect on Professionals’ Knowledge, Practice and Attitudes towards User Involvement Four Years after Implementing an Organisational Development Plan: A Controlled Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    6. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    7. Ingrid Nyborg & Lars J Danbolt & Marit Kirkevold, 2017. "User participation is a family matter: A multiple case study of the experiences of older, hospitalised people and their relatives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4353-4363, December.
    8. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    9. Elizabeth Manias & Fiona Geddes & Bernadette Watson & Dorothy Jones & Phillip Della, 2016. "Perspectives of clinical handover processes: a multi‐site survey across different health professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1-2), pages 80-91, January.
    10. Mendick, Nicola & Young, Bridget & Holcombe, Christopher & Salmon, Peter, 2010. "The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer: Triangulation of consultation with patient and surgeon perspectives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1904-1911, June.
    11. Greer, Scott L. & Stewart, Ellen A. & Wilson, Iain & Donnelly, Peter D., 2014. "Victory for volunteerism? Scottish health board elections and participation in the welfare state," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 221-228.
    12. Tone Andersen‐Hollekim & Marit Solbjør & Marit Kvangarsnes & Torstein Hole & Bodil J. Landstad, 2020. "Narratives of patient participation in haemodialysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2293-2305, July.
    13. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Abelson, J., 2012. "The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1843-1850.
    14. Lucas, Henry, 2015. "New technology and illness self-management: Potential relevance for resource-poor populations in Asia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 145-153.
    15. Mamdooh Alzyood & Debra Jackson & Joanne Brooke & Helen Aveyard, 2018. "An integrative review exploring the perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals towards patient involvement in promoting hand hygiene compliance in the hospital setting," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1329-1345, April.
    16. Jim Broch Skarli, 2021. "Creating or Destructing Value in Use? Handling Cognitive Impairments in Co-Creation with Serious and Chronically Ill Users," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Gill Hubbard & Nicola Illingworth & Neneh Rowa‐Dewar & Liz Forbat & Nora Kearney, 2010. "Treatment decision‐making in cancer care: the role of the carer," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(13‐14), pages 2023-2031, July.
    18. Fumagalli, Lia Paola & Radaelli, Giovanni & Lettieri, Emanuele & Bertele’, Paolo & Masella, Cristina, 2015. "Patient Empowerment and its neighbours: Clarifying the boundaries and their mutual relationships," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 384-394.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:2:y:2009:i:3:p:191-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.