Promoting informed decision making about prostate cancer screening

Evaluation of different features of an eHealth application for personalized illness management support: cancer patients' use and appraisal of usefulness

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper was to describe patients' use of a multi-component eHealth application, WebChoice, designed to support cancer patients in illness management. With WebChoice patients can monitor their symptoms, obtain individually tailored, evidence-based self-management support, ask questions to a clinical nurse specialist, communicate with other patients in a Forum, and use a diary.

METHODS

To better understand what components were most helpful, we analyzed user logs of breast and prostate cancer patients who participated in the experimental arm of an RCT to test effects of WebChoice on clinical outcomes. Patients could freely use the system for one year. After 6 months into the study, participants received questionnaires asking about reasons for using the different WebChoice components and their usefulness.

RESULTS

103 (64%) patients actively used WebChoice, on average 60 times. The Forum and asking questions to the nurse were used the most, yet there were large individual variations in use patterns. Also, patients used different WebChoice components for different reasons. The e-mail communication with nurses was valued highest.

DISCUSSION

Differences were found between breast and prostate cancer patients and between patients with a first time diagnosis and metastases or recurrences. The large variations among patients in their use of WebChoice components demonstrate that patients' needs for support vary.

CONCLUSION

The use patterns and patients' appraisals of usefulness in this study provide important insights into cancer patients' information and communication behavior that are important for further improvements and the design of eHealth applications for illness management support.

Variation in prostate-specific antigen screening in men aged 80 and older in fee-for-service Medicare

OBJECTIVES

To determine the rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men aged 80 and older in Medicare and to examine geographic variation in screening rates across the U.S.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of variation across hospital referral regions using administrative data.

SETTING

National random sample in fee-for-service Medicare.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries aged 80 and older in 2003.

MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of men aged 80 and older screened using the PSA test.

RESULTS

The national rate of PSA screening in men aged 80 and older was 17.2%, but there was wide variation across regions (<2-38%). Higher PSA screening in a region was positively associated with greater total costs (correlation coefficient (r)=0.49, P<.001), greater intensive care unit use at the end of life (r=0.46, P<.001), and greater number of unique physicians seen (r=0.36, P<.001). PSA screening was negatively associated with proportion of beneficiaries using a primary care physician as opposed to a medical subspecialist for the predominance of ambulatory care (r=-0.38, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

PSA screening in men aged 80 and older is common practice, although its frequency is highly variable across the United States. Its association with fragmented physician care and aggressive end-of-life care may reflect less reliance on primary care and consequent difficulty informing patients of the potential harms and low likelihood of benefit of this procedure.

Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Professional organizations recommend that physicians discuss prostate cancer with patients to make individual screening decisions. However, few studies have tested strategies to encourage such discussions, particularly among high-risk populations. We examined the effects of two low-literacy interventions on the frequency of prostate cancer discussion and screening.

DESIGN

Randomized, blinded, controlled trial with concealed allocation.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Inner-city primary care clinic, serving a predominately African-American population. Participants were men aged 45-70 with no history of prostate cancer, presenting for a regular appointment.

INTERVENTIONS

While waiting to see their physician, patients received a patient education handout on prostate cancer screening (PtEd), a handout simply encouraging patients to talk to their doctor about prostate cancer (Cue), or a control handout. The interventions did not advocate for or against screening.

MEASURES

Patient-reported discussion of prostate cancer with the physician and chart reviews determine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test orders and performance of digital rectal examination (DRE). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed. Data were collected in 2003, and analyses were completed in 2006.

RESULTS

Most of the 250 subjects (90.4%) were African American and 78.8% read below the ninth grade level. Overall, 48.4% reported discussing prostate cancer during the appointment. Compared to the control group (37.3%), discussions were significantly more common in the Cue group (58.0%, aOR=2.39 [1.26-4.52]), as well as in the PtEd group (50.0%, aOR=1.92 [1.01-3.65]). When prostate cancer was discussed, patients in the intervention groups more commonly initiated the conversation (47.6% PtEd and 40.0% Cue, vs 9.7% control, p<0.01 for each comparison to control). Compared to the control group (2.4%), PSA test orders increased in the PtEd group (14.1%, aOR=7.62 [1.62-35.83]) and in the Cue group (12.3%, aOR=5.86 [1.24-27.81]). Documentation of DRE did not change significantly (4.7% PtEd, 6.2% Cue, and 6.0% control).

CONCLUSIONS

Two simple low-literacy interventions significantly increased discussion of prostate cancer and PSA test orders but not performance of DRE. Both interventions were effective in empowering low-literacy patients to initiate conversations about prostate cancer with their physician.

Decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening National Health Interview Survey, 2000

BACKGROUND

The net benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test are uncertain, and professional organizations recommend that physicians discuss these uncertainties with patients before initiating screening. Using a nationally representative sample of men reporting past PSA screening, we aimed to determine the extent to which screening was initiated by physicians and preceded by physician-patient discussions.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey; 2,676 men aged 40 and older underwent PSA screening and met study inclusion criteria. We analyzed the proportions of men for whom PSA screening was (1) was initiated by the physician versus the patient, and (2) preceded by discussions about the test's advantages and disadvantages.

RESULTS

Overall, 74% (95% CI=71.8-76.0) of recipients reported that PSA screening was initiated by their physician, and the proportion increased with advancing age, declining health status, lack of family history of prostate cancer, presence of a usual source of medical care, and non-Hispanic ethnicity. Sixty-five percent (95% CI=63.1-67.1) of screening recipients reported prescreening discussions with their physicians. Discussions were more common with physician-initiated screening than with patient-initiated screening, and among patients reporting a usual source of medical care, non-blue-collar occupation, and black race.

CONCLUSIONS

Among U.S. men receiving PSA screening, screening is usually initiated by physicians, frequently in men relatively less likely to benefit from it, and often without prior discussion of the test's advantages and disadvantages. Further examination of the PSA decision-making process among screened and unscreened men is warranted.

Men considering a hypothetical treatment for prostate cancer: a comparison to patients

BACKGROUND

In facilitating informed decision making about PSA screening, men are often asked to consider the potential consequences of the test, including a diagnosis of prostate cancer and how they would want to be treated. However, there is no empirical evidence thus far demonstrating that men are able to consider this hypothetical situation in a realistic manner.

PURPOSE

To compare the features (attributes) of treatments that are important to non-patient men considering a hypothetical diagnosis of prostate cancer with those deemed important to men actually diagnosed with early-stage disease.

METHODS

Two groups of men went through a decision aid interview to help them choose between treatment options for early-stage prostate cancer: non-patient men who imagined themselves to be diagnosed with the disease, and newly diagnosed patients. During the interview participants identified features of the treatment and disease that were important to their decisions.

RESULTS

The percentage of non-patients and patients that thought particular attributes were important was correlated: r (33) = 0.77, p < 0.01. The effects on bladder and bowel functioning were considered important to >or=50% of each group. In addition to the 22 attributes initially presented, 49% of non-patients and 67% of patients identified additional attributes as being important to their decision. Eight (42%) of the 19 additional attributes were identified by non-patients and patients alike.

CONCLUSIONS

The group of non-patient men provided a close approximation to the group of newly diagnosed men with respect to the attributes identified as being important to their treatment decisions for early-stage prostate cancer, suggesting that the consideration of what is important to the decision by non-patient men is realistic.

Promoting an ethical approach to unproven screening imaging tests

The use of screening imaging technology such as electron beam computed tomography and computed tomographic scans for the early detection of coronary artery disease, lung cancer, and other diseases is rising, even though they have not been proven to reduce disease-specific mortality. Until randomized, controlled trials assess the efficacy of these tests as screening tests, they will remain controversial. It is unclear whether the potential benefits of these screening tests outweigh the risks. In a practice environment in which public demand and enthusiasm for screening is high, radiologists can recognize the ethical issues associated with unproven screening imaging tests; understand current national policies toward professionalism and informed and shared decision making for screening; draw on the lessons learned from the proliferation of another unproven screening test, the prostate-specific antigen blood test for prostate cancer; and work with others in the health care system to promote an ethical approach to screening imaging tests.

Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?

Interest in informed decision making (IDM) has grown in recent years. Greater patient involvement in decision making is consistent with recommendations to improve health care quality. This report provides an overview of IDM; clarifies the differences between IDM, shared decision making (SDM), and informed consent; and reviews the evidence to date about IDM for cancer screening. The authors also make recommendations for research. We define IDM as occurring when an individual understands the disease or condition being addressed and comprehends what the clinical service involves, including its benefits, risks, limitations, alternatives, and uncertainties; has considered his or her preferences and makes a decision consistent with them; and believes he or she has participated in decision making at the level desired. IDM interventions are used to facilitate informed decisions. The authors reviewed the evidence to date for IDM and cancer screening based primarily on published meta-analyses and a recent report for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guide to Community Preventive Services. IDM and SDM interventions, such as decision aids, result in improved knowledge, beliefs, risk perceptions, and combinations of these. Little or no evidence exists, however, regarding whether these interventions result in 1) participation in decision making at a level consistent with patient preferences or 2) effects on patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. These variables generally either were not assessed or were not reported in the articles reviewed. Results of interventions on uptake of screening were variable. After exposure to IDM/SDM interventions, most studies showed small decreases in prostate cancer screening, whereas four studies on breast and colorectal cancer screening showed small increases. Few data are available by which to evaluate current practices in cancer screening IDM. Patient participation in IDM should be facilitated for those who prefer it. More research is needed to assess the benefits of IDM/SDM interventions and to tailor interventions to individuals who are most likely to desire and benefit from them. There are many system barriers to IDM/SDM and few tools. More work is needed in this area as well. In addition, research is needed to learn how to incorporate IDM into ongoing clinical practice and to determine whether there are unintended negative consequences of IDM.

Assessment of content completeness and accuracy of prostate cancer patient education materials

Providing care for men with prostate cancer is particularly challenging because of the controversy surrounding screening and the paucity of randomized control trials comparing treatments. Therefore, a patient's personal preferences, and adequate patient education become central to well-informed medical decision-making. Acknowledging the need for high quality education materials for men with prostate cancer, we developed and pilot tested a measure to assess the completeness and accuracy of available materials. The measure rates materials on their inclusion and accuracy of the primary knowledge base a patient should acquire before deciding on prostate cancer screening or treatment, to prepare for staging, and to manage treatment and disease-related symptoms. We found that many available prostate cancer education materials are factually accurate, but omit information that is important and relevant to patients with prostate cancer.