Discussions about prostate cancer screening between U.S. primary care physicians and their patients

Talking About Your Prostate: Perspectives from Providers and Community Members

Prostate cancer (PrCA) screening is controversial, especially for African-American (AA) men who have higher PrCA incidence and mortality than other racial/ethnic groups. Patient-provider communication is important for the PrCA screening decision process. The study purpose was to better understand the current dialogue between primary care providers (PCPs-physicians and nurse practitioners) and AA men about PrCA prevention and screening. An online survey with 46 PCPs, education sessions (including pre/post surveys) with 56 AA men, and a forum with 5 panelists and 38 AA men for open dialogue were held to examine both provider and community perspectives on PrCA communication needs and practices. PCPs' perceptions of PrCA screening were varied and they used different PrCA screening guidelines in their practices. PCPs and AA men had different experiences with PrCA communication. PCPs reported that they have discussions about PrCA screening and prostate health with AA patients; few AA men reported these same experiences. About 38.0% of PCPs reported that they remain neutral about PSA testing during discussions; however, only 10.7% of AA men reported that their doctor remained neutral. Prostate health knowledge among AA men increased significantly following participation in the education sessions (p < 0.001). AA community members reported high satisfaction regarding the education session and forum. Different recommendations from PCPs may hinder AA men's decisions about PrCA screening. The forum used in this study could be a model for others to help improve patient-provider communication and increase engagement in dialogue about this common cancer.

Primary Care Physicians Beliefs about Prostate-Specific Antigen Evidence Uncertainty, Screening Efficacy, and Test Use

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Little is known about primary care physicians' (PCPs) beliefs about prostate cancer screening efficacy, evidence uncertainty, and their actual screening behaviors. We examined factors associated with PCP beliefs about screening efficacy and uncertainty and whether beliefs were associated with prostate specific-antigen (PSA) test use.

METHODS

The 2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening collected information on physicians' attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to prostate cancer and screening (n=1,256). Two factors were constructed that measured belief in certainty of evidence for PSA testing and belief in screening efficacy. These factors, along with PCP sociodemographic and practice-related factors, were used to examine associations with offering the PSA test.

RESULTS

Most PCPs were male (70%), Caucasian (76%), under age 50 (56%), and practiced in communities with more than 50,000 residents (54%). In bivariate analysis, variables associated with PCP belief in evidence uncertainty included female gender, younger age, and lower patient volume. Variables associated with belief in screening efficacy included older age and general and family practice specialty. After adjustment, PCPs with high belief in evidence uncertainty were less likely (OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.06, 0.62) to offer PSA and more likely to practice shared decision making (OR=1.80, 95% CI=1.22-2.67). PCPs with high belief in screening efficacy were more likely (OR=2.99, 95% CI=1.15, 7.77) to offer PSA and less likely to practice shared decision making (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.32-0.70).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that belief patterns about evidence uncertainty and the efficacy of using PSA may play a role in whether PCPs offer PSA.

Prostate-specific antigen screening: An update of physician beliefs and practices

PSA testing for early detection of prostate cancer decreased dramatically following the 2012 PSA screening recommendation against routine screening of asymptomatic men. In an assessment of the screening behaviors of primary care providers, the majority (61%) of family medicine and internal medicine practitioners who responded to a 2016 DocStyles online survey (608 of 1003) recommended prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing based on individual risk or other factors, rather than routinely screening all men for prostate cancer.

A comparison of web-based versus print-based decision AIDS for prostate cancer screening: participants' evaluation and utilization

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids facilitate informed decision making for medical tests and procedures that have uncertain benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To describe participants' evaluation and utilization of print-based and web-based prostate cancer screening decision aids that were found to improve decisional outcomes in a prior randomized controlled trial.

DESIGN

Men completed brief telephone interviews at baseline, one month, and 13 months post-randomization.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were primary care patients, 45-70 years old, who received the print-based (N = 628) or web-based decision aid (N = 625) and completed the follow-up assessments.

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed men's baseline preference for web-based or print-based materials, time spent using the decision aids, comprehension of the overall message, and ratings of the content.

KEY RESULTS

Decision aid use was self-reported by 64.3 % (web) and 81.8 % (print) of participants. Significant predictors of decision aid use were race (white vs. non-white, OR = 2.43, 95 % CI: 1.77, 3.35), higher education (OR = 1.68, 95 % CI: 1.06, 2.70) and trial arm (print vs. web, OR = 2.78, 95 % CI: 2.03, 3.83). Multivariable analyses indicated that web-arm participants were more likely to use the website when they preferred web-based materials (OR: 1.91, CI: 1.17, 3.12), whereas use of the print materials was not significantly impacted by a preference for print-based materials (OR: 0.69, CI: 0.38, 1.25). Comprehension of the decision aid message (i.e., screening is an individual decision) did not significantly differ between arms in adjusted analyses (print: 61.9 % and web: 68.2 %, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aid use was independently influenced by race, education, and the decision aid medium, findings consistent with the 'digital divide.' These results suggest that when it is not possible to provide this age cohort with their preferred decision aid medium, print materials will be more highly used than web-based materials. Although there are many advantages to web-based decision aids, providing an option for print-based decision aids should be considered.

Informed decision making among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer survivors: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

First degree relatives (FDRs) of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) are at increased risk for developing the disease, due in part to multiple concurrent risk factors. There is a lack of innovative targeted decision aids to help FDRs make an informed decision about whether or not to undergo PCa screening.

PURPOSE

This randomized pilot trial evaluated the efficacy of a targeted PCa screening decision aid in unaffected FDRs of PCa survivors.

METHODS

Seventy-eight Black and White FDRs were randomized to one of two decision aid groups; 39 to a FDR-targeted decision aid and 39 to a general decision aid. The targeted decision aid group received a general PCa decision aid booklet plus a newly developed decision aid DVD targeted specifically for FDRs. PCa screening decision outcomes included knowledge, decisional conflict, distress, and satisfaction with screening decision. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 4 weeks after baseline.

RESULTS

There were no differences by intervention group for knowledge, decisional conflict, distress, or satisfaction with screening decision (p>0.05). However, men in both groups had significant increases in knowledge and decreases in decisional conflict (p<0.001). These changes were most pronounced (p<0.05) for younger men compared to older men.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that general and targeted information can play an important role in increasing knowledge and decreasing decisional conflict among FDRs. Additional research is needed to identify subgroups of men who benefit the most and better understand the outcomes of a screening decision aid among diverse samples of FDRs.

Physician behaviors to promote informed decisions for prostate cancer screening: a National Research Network study

Clinical guidelines for prostate cancer screening (PCS) advise physicians to discuss the potential harms and benefits of screening. However, there is a lack of training programs for informed decision-making (IDM), and it is unknown which IDM behaviors physicians have the most difficulty performing. Identifying difficult behaviors can help tailor training programs. In the context of developing a physician-IDM program for PCS, we aimed to describe physicians' use of nine key IDM behaviors for the PCS discussion and to examine the relation between the behaviors and physician characteristics. A cross-sectional sample of The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network completed surveys about their behavior regarding PCS (N = 246; response rate = 58%). The surveys included nine physician key IDM behaviors for PCS and a single-item question describing their general practice style for PCS. The most common IDM behavior was to invite men to ask questions. The two least common reported behaviors concerned patients uncertain about screening (i.e., arrange follow-up and provide additional information for undecided men). Physicians reported difficulty with these two behaviors regardless whether they reported to discuss or not to discuss PCS with patients. Reported use of key IDM behaviors was associated with a general practice style for PCS and being affiliated with a residency-training program. Physician training programs for IDM should include physician skills to address the needs of patients uncertain about screening. Future research should determine if actual behavior is associated with self-reported behavior for the PCS discussion.

Decision making and prostate cancer screening

This article presents an overview of the challenges that men encounter in making decisions about prostate cancer screening, including complex affective and cognitive factors and controversies in the interpretation of the evidence on prostate cancer screening. Shared decision making involving patient decision aids are discussed as approaches that can be used to improve the quality of prostate cancer screening decisions, including a close alignment between a man's values, goals, and preferences and his choice about screening.

US Primary Care Physicians' Prostate Cancer Screening Practices: A Vignette-Based Analysis of Screening Men at High Risk

BACKGROUND

Limited information exists on primary care physicians' (PCPs) use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test by patient risk category. We describe PCP responses to hypothetical patient scenario (PS) involving PSA testing among high-risk asymptomatic men.

METHODS

Data were from the 2007 to 2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening. PS#1: healthy 55-year-old white male with no family history of prostate cancer; PS#2: healthy 45-year-old African American male with no family history of prostate cancer; and PS#3: healthy 50-year-old male with a family history of prostate cancer. Data were analyzed in SAS/SUDAAN.

RESULTS

Most PCPs indicated that they generally discuss the possible benefits/risks of PSA testing with the patient and then recommend the test (PS#1-PS#3 range, 53.4%-68.7%; P < .001); only about 1% reported discussing and then recommending against the test. For PS#3, compared to PS#1 and #2, PCPs were more likely to discuss and recommend the test or attempt to persuade the patient who initially declines the test. For PS#3, all clinicians generally would order/discuss the PSA test and not rely on the patient to ask.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians treat family history as an important reason to recommend, persuade, and initiate PSA testing.

African american primary care physicians' prostate cancer screening practices

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. African American (AA) men have greater prostate cancer burden than other men. Little is known about AA primary care physicians' (PCPs) practices regarding prostate cancer screening.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening. The current study included 604 AA PCPs. Outcomes assessed were (a) offering screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (b) use of screening discussions to involve patients in the decision to screen, and (c) having a discussion policy to try to talk the patient into getting the screening tests.

RESULTS

Most AA PCPs were male (52%), younger than 50 years (61%), and had 21% to 100% AA patients in their practices (74%). The majority (94%) of AA PCPs offered prostate cancer screening using PSA, discussed the tests with their male patients to involve them in the decision to screen (83%), and had a policy to try to talk the patient into getting the screening tests (77%). Multivariate analysis showed that offering screening, use of discussions, and a usual policy to encourage taking the screening tests varied mainly by practice-related factors, including practice type, practice location, and percentage of AA patients in the practice.

CONCLUSION

Data from this study indicate that most AA PCPs reported high proscreening behaviors for all 3 outcomes. Additionally, practice- and screening-related factors may be important when examining AA PCP screening behaviors.

A comparison of US and Australian men's values and preferences for PSA screening

Background

Patient preferences derived from an assessment of values can help inform the design of screening programs, but how best to do so, and whether such preferences differ cross-nationally, has not been well-examined. The objective of this study was to compare the values and preferences of Australian and US men for PSA (prostate specific antigen) screening.

Methods

We used an internet based survey of men aged 50–75 with no personal or family history of prostate cancer recruited from on-line panels of a survey research organization in the US and Australia. Participants viewed information on prostate cancer and prostate cancer screening with PSA testing then completed a values clarification task that included information on 4 key attributes: chance of 1) being diagnosed with prostate cancer, 2) dying from prostate cancer, 3) requiring a biopsy as a result of screening, and 4) developing impotence or incontinence as a result of screening. The outcome measures were self reported most important attribute, unlabelled screening test choice, and labelled screening intent, assessed on post-task questionnaires.

Results

We enrolled 911 participants (US:456; AU:455), mean age was 59.7; 88.0% were white; 36.4% had completed at least a Bachelors’ degree; 42.0% reported a PSA test in the past 12 months. Australian men were more likely to be white and to have had recent screening. For both US and Australian men, the most important attribute was the chance of dying from prostate cancer. Unlabelled post-task preference for the PSA screening-like option was greater for Australian (39.1%) compared to US (26.3%) participants (adjusted OR 1.68 (1.28-2.22)). Labelled intent for screening was high for both countries: US:73.7%, AUS:78.0% (p = 0.308).

Conclusions

There was high intent for PSA screening in both US and Australian men; fewer men in each country chose the PSA-like option on the unlabelled question. Australian men were somewhat more likely to prefer PSA screening. Men in both countries did not view the increased risk of diagnosis as a negative aspect, suggesting more work needs to be done on communicating the concept of overdiagnosis to men facing a PSA screening decision.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01558583).

National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening

PURPOSE

Recent clinical practice guidelines on prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (PSA screening) have recommended that clinicians practice shared decision making-a process involving clinician-patient discussion of the pros, cons, and uncertainties of screening. We undertook a study to determine the prevalence of shared decision making in both PSA screening and nonscreening, as well as patient characteristics associated with shared decision making.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 3,427 men aged 50 to 74 years participating in the 2010 National Health Interview Survey responded to questions on the extent of shared decision making (past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and scientific uncertainty associated with PSA screening), PSA screening intensity (tests in past 5 years), and sociodemographic and health-related characteristics.

RESULTS

Nearly two-thirds (64.3%) of men reported no past physician-patient discussion of advantages, disadvantages, or scientific uncertainty (no shared decision making); 27.8% reported discussion of 1 to 2 elements only (partial shared decision making); 8.0% reported discussion of all 3 elements (full shared decision making). Nearly one-half (44.2%) reported no PSA screening, 27.8% reported low-intensity (less-than-annual) screening, and 25.1% reported high-intensity (nearly annual) screening. Absence of shared decision making was more prevalent in men who were not screened; 88% (95% CI, 86.2%-90.1%) of nonscreened men reported no shared decision making compared with 39% (95% CI, 35.0%-43.3%) of men undergoing high-intensity screening. Extent of shared decision making was associated with black race, Hispanic ethnicity, higher education, health insurance, and physician recommendation. Screening intensity was associated with older age, higher education, usual source of medical care, and physician recommendation, as well as with partial vs no or full shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Most US men report little shared decision making in PSA screening, and the lack of shared decision making is more prevalent in nonscreened than in screened men. Screening intensity is greatest with partial shared decision making, and different elements of shared decision making are associated with distinct patient characteristics. Shared decision making needs to be improved in decisions for and against PSA screening.

Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing with men older than 70 years

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how shared decision making (SDM) is being carried out between older men and their health care providers. Our study aimed to describe the use of SDM key elements and assess their associations with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing among older men.

METHODS

We conducted descriptive and logistic regression modeling analyses using the 2005 and 2010 National Health Interview Survey data.

RESULTS

Age-specific prevalence of PSA testing was similar in 2005 and 2010. In 2010, 44.1% of men aged ≥70 years had PSA testing. Only 27.2% (95% confidence interval, 22.2-32.9) of them reported having discussions about both advantages and disadvantages of testing. Multiple regression analyses showed that PSA-based screening was positively associated with discussions of advantages only (P < .001) and with discussions of both advantages and disadvantages (P < .001) compared with no discussion. Discussion of scientific uncertainties was not associated with PSA testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts are needed to increase physicians' awareness of and adherence to PSA-based screening recommendations. Given that discussions of both advantages and disadvantages increased the uptake of PSA testing and discussion of scientific uncertainties has no effect, additional research about the nature, context, and extent of SDM and about patients' knowledge, values, and preferences regarding PSA-based screening is warranted.

Primary care physicians' use of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening

PURPOSE

Leading professional organizations acknowledge the importance of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening. We describe primary care physicians' reports of their prescreening discussions about the potential harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening.

METHODS

Members of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network responded to a survey that included (1) an indicator of practice styles related to discussing harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen testing and providing a screening recommendation or letting patients decide, and (2) indicators reflecting physicians' beliefs about prostate cancer screening. The survey was conducted between July 2007 and January 2008.

RESULTS

Of 426 physicians 246 (57.7%) completed the survey questionnaire. Compared with physicians who ordered screening without discussion (24.3%), physicians who discussed harms and benefits with patients and then let them decide (47.7%) were more likely to endorse beliefs that scientific evidence does not support screening, that patients should be told about the lack of evidence, and that patients have a right to know the limitations of screening; they were also less likely to endorse the belief that there was no need to educate patients because they wanted to be screened. Concerns about medicolegal risk associated with not screening were more common among physicians who discussed the harms and benefits and recommended screening than among physicians who discussed screening and let their patients decide.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the variability in physicians' use of an informed decision-making process can be attributed to beliefs about screening. Concerns about medicolegal risk remain an important barrier for shared decision making.

Prostate cancer screening practices of African-American and non-African-American US primary care physicians: a cross-sectional survey

Purpose:

We explored whether African-American (AA) primary care physicians (PCPs) have different prostate cancer screening practices compared to non-AA PCPs, after adjustment for potential confounding factors such as the proportion of AA patients in PCP practices.

Methods:

We used SAS/SUDAAN to compare weighted responses from AA PCPs (n = 604) with those from non-AA PCPs (n = 647) in the 2007–2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physician Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening. We used multivariate logistic regression to calculate the weighted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results:

We found that AA PCPs had higher odds of working in practices with above-the-median (≥ 21%) proportions of AA male patients (OR, 9.02; 95% CI: 5.85–13.91). A higher proportion of AA PCPs (53.5%; 95% CI: 49.5–57.4) reported an above-the-median proportion (≥ 91%) of PSA testing during health maintenance exams as compared to non-AA PCPs (39.4%; 95% CI: 35.5–43.4; P < 0.0002). After adjusting for the proportion of AA patients and other factors, we found that AA PCPs had higher odds of using PSA tests to screen men (OR, 1.74; 95% CI: 1.11–2.73).

Conclusion:

This study quantifies the magnitude of the differences reported in previous focus group studies. Our results may be helpful in hypothesis generation and in planning future research studies.

Primary care providers' perspectives on discontinuing prostate cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend against routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for older men and for those with lower life expectancies. The authors of this report examined providers' decision-making regarding discontinuing PSA screening.

METHODS

A survey of primary providers from a large, university-affiliated primary care practice was administered. Providers were asked about their current screening practices, factors that influenced their decision to discontinue screening, and barriers to discontinuing screening. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine whether taking age and/or life expectancy into account and barriers to discontinuing were associated with clinician characteristics and practice styles.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five of 141 providers (88.7%) participated in the survey. Over half (59.3%) took both age and life expectancy into account, whereas 12.2% did not consider either in their decisions to discontinue PSA screening. Providers varied in the age at which they typically stopped screening patients, and the majority (66.4%) reported difficulty in assessing life expectancy. Taking patient age and life expectancy into account was not associated with provider characteristics or practice styles. The most frequently cited barriers to discontinuing PSA screening were patient expectation (74.4%) and time constraints (66.4%). Black providers were significantly less likely than nonblack providers to endorse barriers related to time constraints and clinical uncertainty, although these results were limited by the small sample size of black providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although age and life expectancy often figured prominently in decisions to use screening, providers faced multiple barriers to discontinuing routine PSA screening.

PSA screening: determinants of primary-care physician practice patterns

BACKGROUND

The effect of practice guidelines and the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trials on PSA screening practices of primary-care physicians (PCPs) is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a national cross-sectional on-line survey of a random sample of 3010 PCPs from July to August 2010. Participants were queried about their knowledge of prostate cancer, PSA screening guidelines, the ERSPC and PLCO trials, and about their PSA screening practices. Factors associated with PSA screening were identified using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

A total of 152 (5%) participants opened and 89 completed the on-line survey, yielding a response rate of 58% for those that viewed the invitation. Eighty percent of respondents correctly identified prostate cancer risk factors. In all, 51% and 64% reported that they discuss and order PSA screening for men aged 50-75 years, respectively. Fifty-four percent were most influenced by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. Also, 21% and 28% of respondents stated that their PSA screening practices were influenced by the ERSPC and PLCO trials, respectively. Medical specialty was the only variable associated with propensity to screen, with family medicine physicians more likely to use PSA screening than internists (β=0.21, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the physicians surveyed did not routinely discuss PSA screening with eligible patients. The impact of the ERSPC and PLCO trials on PSA screening practices was low among US PCPs. USPSTF recommendations for PSA screening continue to be the strongest influence on PCPs' propensity to use PSA screening.