Do Men Receive Information Required for Shared Decision Making About PSA Testing? Results from a National Survey

Prevalence and determinants of shared decision-making for PSA testing in the United States

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing but appears underutilized. This population-based study assessed the prevalence and determinants of SDM for PSA testing among US men.

METHODS

We assessed PSA testing rates and SDM engagement in men aged 40 and older without prostate cancer history using the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. SDM was defined as discussing the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with a physician. We used multivariable logistic regression with machine learning to identify factors associated with lack of SDM.

RESULTS

Among 9723 eligible participants (mean age 58 years), lifetime PSA testing prevalence was 45.9% and the 1-year testing incidence was 29.1%. Only 24.1% reported engaging in SDM with a physician, while 62.9% never discussed PSA testing. Younger age and lower education levels were the primary determinants of decreased SDM engagement. Men with less education engaged in SDM less than half as often as those with higher education levels across all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Societal guidelines recommend SDM for PSA testing. However, most men, regardless of age, have never engaged in SDM conversations with a healthcare provider about PSA testing, especially those with less education. More efforts are needed to improve patient-provider conversations about the potential benefits and harms of PSA testing.

Urologists' and general practitioners' knowledge, beliefs and practice relevant for opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review

Background

Recent guidelines on opportunistic prostate cancer screening conclude that the decision to screen with prostate-specific antigen should be made by each patient individually together with the clinician. However, there is evidence of a lack of clinicians' awareness of prostate cancer screening. This study sought to assess the recent evidence of clinicians' knowledge, beliefs, and practice regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening comparing urologists and generals practitioners.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in 3 online databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE (from January 1, 2015, to January 9th, 2023). Studies that explored clinicians' knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening were included. Studies were assessed for quality reporting according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines.

Results

A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: ten studies included primary care health professionals, three studies included urologists, and one study included both. Studies involving general practitioners showed a generally low level of awareness of the recommended uses of the test, and urologists showed a greater knowledge of clinical practice guidelines. General practitioners' opinion of prostate-specific antigen was generally unfavourable in contrast to urologists' who were more likely to be proactive in ordering the test. Less than half of the included studies evaluated shared-decision making in practice and 50% of clinicians surveyed implemented it.

Conclusion

General practitioners had less knowledge of prostate cancer risk factors and clinical practice guidelines in the use of PSA than urologists, which makes them less likely to follow available recommendations. A need to carry out education interventions with trusted resources based on the available evidence and the current guidelines was identified.

Attitudes and health behaviors of middle-aged and older adults with elevated tumor markers in China

Objectives

To understand the attitudes and health behaviors of middle-aged and older adults in China after receiving elevated results of tumor markers (TMs) test in the annual health examinations (AHEs) and explore the influencing factors.

Methods

A three-section online questionnaire survey was conducted from March 1 to April 30, 2020 in Hangzhou, China, to people who were aged 45 and older and had at least one elevated result of TMs test. Clinical information was collected from the online survey and medical records. Descriptive statistics were carried out followed by regression analyses.

Results

Of 380 participants, 76.1% were unwilling to quit the TMs test in AHEs, whereas 75.3% would take the doctor's advice and quit unnecessary TMs test; 67.4% felt stressed about their TMs. Among participants with elevated TMs, 76.8% changed lifestyle to keep healthy, 74.2% sought health information, 58.9% requested a TMs retest, and 50.3% did further tests to confirm a diagnosis. Family history of cancer was associated with lifestyle changing; education level, area of residence and health insurance were associated with health information seeking; comorbidity were associated with retests and sequential confirming tests.

Conclusion

The application of the TMs test in AHEs among Chinese people may lead to positive and negative behavioral consequences and psychological distress. Doctors have a significant impact on patients' health behaviors. Accurate indications and adequate communication with patients before and after the TMs test are in great need.

Racial Disparities in Prostate Cancer Screening: The Role of Shared Decision Making

INTRODUCTION

The 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations endorsed shared decision making for men aged 55-69 years, encouraging consideration of patient race/ethnicity for prostate-specific antigen screening. This study aimed to assess whether a proxy shared decision-making variable modified the impact of race/ethnicity on the likelihood of prostate-specific antigen screening.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of men aged between 55 and 69 years, who responded to the prostate-specific antigen screening portions of the 2020 U.S.-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, was performed between September and December 2022. Complex sample multivariable logistic regression models with an interaction term combining race and estimated shared decision making were used to test whether shared decision making modified the impact of race/ethnicity on screening.

RESULTS

Of a weighted sample of 26.8 million men eligible for prostate-specific antigen screening, 25.7% (6.9 million) reported for prostate-specific antigen screening. In adjusted analysis, estimated shared decision making was a significant predictor of prostate-specific antigen screening (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=2.36, 2.98, p<0.001). The interaction between race/ethnicity and estimated shared decision making on the receipt of prostate-specific antigen screening was significant (pint=0.001). Among those who did not report estimated shared decision making, both non-Hispanic Black (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.61, 0.97, p=0.026) and Hispanic (OR=0.51, 95% CI=0.39, 0.68, p<0.001) men were significantly less likely to undergo prostate-specific antigen screening than non-Hispanic White men. On the contrary, among respondents who reported estimated shared decision making, no race-based differences in prostate-specific antigen screening were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Although much disparities research focuses on race-based differences in prostate-specific antigen screening, research on strategies to mitigate these disparities is needed. Shared decision making might attenuate the impact of race/ethnic disparities on the likelihood of prostate-specific antigen screening.

Navigating the uncertainty of precision cancer screening: The role of shared decision-making

Objective

Describe how applying a shared decision making (SDM) lens to the implementation of new technologies can improve patient-centeredness.

Methods

This paper argues that the emergence of polygenic risk scores (PRS) for cancer screening presents an illustrative opportunity to include SDM when novel technologies enter clinical care.

Results

PRS are novel tools that indicate an individual's genetic risk of a given disease relative to the population. PRS are anticipated to help identify individuals most and least likely to benefit from screening. However, PRS have several types of uncertainty, including validity across populations, disparate computational methods, and inclusion of different genomic data across laboratories.

Conclusion

Implementing SDM alongside new technologies could prove useful for their ethical and patient-centered utilization. SDM's importance as an approach to decision-making will not diminish, as evidence, uncertainty, and patient values will remain intrinsic to the art and science of clinical care.

Innovation

SDM can help providers and patients navigate the considerable uncertainty inherent in implementing new technologies, enabling decision-making based on existing evidence and patient values.

Disparities Associated with Shared Decision-making in Prostate Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer screening guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. However, it is unclear who undergoes SDM and whether any disparities exist.

OBJECTIVE

To examine sociodemographic differences in participation of SDM and its association with PSA testing in prostate cancer screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among men aged 45-75 yr undergoing PSA screening, using the 2018 National Health Interview Survey database. The evaluated sociodemographic features included age, race, marital status, sexual orientation, smoking status, working status, financial difficulty, US geographic regions, and cancer history. Questions regarding self-reported PSA testing and whether respondents discussed its advantages and disadvantages with their healthcare provider were analyzed.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Our primary outcome was to evaluate the possible associations between various sociodemographic factors and undergoing PSA screening and SDM. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to detect potential associations.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 59596 men were identified, of whom 5605 answered the question regarding PSA testing, with 2288 (40.6%) undergoing PSA testing. Of these men, 39.5% (n = 2226) discussed the advantages and 25.6% (n = 1434) discussed the disadvantages of PSA testing. On a multivariable analysis, older (odds ratio [OR] 1.092; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.081-1.103, p < 0.001) and married (OR 1.488; 95% CI 1.287-1.720, p < 0.001) men were more likely to undergo PSA testing. Although Black men were more likely to discuss PSA advantages (OR 1.421; 95% CI 1.150-1.756, p = 0.001) and disadvantages (OR 1.554; 95% CI 1.240-1.947, p < 0.001) than White men, this did not correlate with higher rates of PSA screening (OR 1.086; 95% CI 0.865-1.364, p = 0.477). The lack of important clinical data remains a limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, SDM rates were low. Older and married men had an increased likelihood of SDM and PSA testing. Despite higher rates of SDM, Black men had similar rates of PSA testing to White men.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated sociodemographic differences in shared decision-making (SDM) in prostate cancer screening using a large national database. We found that SDM had varying results in different sociodemographic groups.

Strategies to enhance the approach to prostate cancer screening of South African black men in the Free State: a Delphi study

Background

The incidence and mortality rates of prostate cancer (PCa) are disproportionately on the increase among South African black men. Recent studies show a greater net benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening of black men compared with the general population. There are, however, knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) gaps among primary healthcare providers (HCPs) and users (black men) on PCa screening. Likewise, there is a scarcity of research on strategies to address these gaps.

Objective

This study sought to determine complementing strategies to enhance the approach to PCa screening of African men in the Free State, South Africa, from the perspectives of primary HCPs and users.

Methods

This study utilized a three-round modified Delphi survey to achieve its aim. Consensus was determined by an a priori threshold of ≥70% of agreement.

Results

The survey involved a multidisciplinary panel of 19 experts. The consensus was reached on 34 items (strategies) to enhance the approach to PCa screening in the study setting. Community health education strategies were proffered, relating to relevant topics, methods, venues of delivery, and persons to deliver the education. Continuing education topics and methods of instruction were suggested for primary HCPs.

Conclusions

In view of the existing KAP gaps in PCa screening among primary HCPs and users (black men), an expert consensus was determined, on complementing strategies to enhance the approach to PCa screening of South African black men in the study setting.

Associations of Content and Context of Communication with Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing

There is limited research about the content and context of communication on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing among men in the state of Florida. The purpose of this study is to understand how the content communication (discussion of advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing between provider and patient; provider recommendations of PSA testing) and the context of communication (continuity of care denoted by the presence of a personal doctor) influence PSA testing. Data were drawn from the Florida Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Receipt of PSA testing was the primary outcome. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for sociodemographic, clinical, healthcare access, and lifestyle characteristics when associating the content and context of communication with PSA testing. Discussions were classified into four mutually exclusive categories: discussions of advantages and disadvantages, only advantages, only disadvantages, and no discussion. The most significant predictors for PSA testing included physician recommendation, discussions including advantages, older age, non-smoking, and having a personal doctor. Individualized PSA screening may be a pathway to reducing racial disparities in screening for prostate cancer (PCa) and, by extension, lower incidence and mortality rates. Developing a bill to create an Office of Men's Health at Health & Human Services is recommended.

Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions

OBJECTIVES

Examine reliability and validity of the Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale for cancer screening and medication decisions.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis from 6174 participants who made decisions about cancer screening (breast, colon or prostate) or medication (menopause, depression, hypertension or high cholesterol). Key measures included the SDM Process scale, decisional conflict, decision regret, and decision quality. Construct validity was examined by testing whether higher SDM Process scores were associated with lower regret, lower decisional conflict and higher decision quality. Meta-analyses summarized data across studies. Some studies assessed the scale's reliability.

RESULTS

Average SDM Process scores ranged from 1.2 to 2.5. There was a moderate-to-large, positive association between scores and lack of decisional conflict (cancer screening: d=0.61, CI(0.38, 0.84), p < .001; medications: d=0.36, CI(0.29, 0.44), p < .001). High scores were associated with lower decision regret (cancer screening: d=-0.24, CI(-0.37, -0.11), p < .001; medications: d=-0.30, CI(-0.40,-0.20), p < .001). There was no relationship with decision quality. Retest reliability was acceptable (ICC>0.7) for seven of eight clinical samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM Process scale demonstrated construct validity and retest reliability in cancer screening and medication decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The validated SDM Process scale is a short, patient reported metric to evaluate the current state of SDM.

Knowledge, attitude and practice on screening and early diagnosis of prostate cancer of primary health care providers in the Free State

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is topmost in terms of incidence and mortality among men in sub-Saharan Africa, including South Africa. Prostate cancer screening is beneficial only to certain categories of men, making a rational screening approach necessary.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) regarding prostate cancer screening among primary health care (PHC) providers in the Free State, South Africa.

SETTING

Selected district hospitals, local clinics and general practice rooms.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional analytical survey. Participating nurses and community health workers (CHWs) were selected through stratified random sampling. All available medical doctors and clinical associates were approached to participate, totalling 548 participants. Relevant information was obtained from these PHC providers using self-administered questionnaires. Both descriptive and analytical statistics were computed using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Version 9. A p-value 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Most participants had poor knowledge (64.8%), neutral attitudes (58.6%) and poor practice (40.0%). Female PHC providers, lower cadre nurses and CHWs had lower mean knowledge scores. Not participating in prostate cancer-related continuing medical education was associated with poor knowledge (p 0.001), negative attitudes (p = 0.047) and poor practice (p 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study established appreciable KAP gaps relating to prostate cancer screening among PHC providers. Identified gaps should be addressed through the preferred teaching and learning strategies suggested by the participants.Contribution: This study establishes the need to address KAP gaps regarding prostate cancer screening among PHC providers; therefore necessitating the capacity-building roles of district family physicians.

Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer: A comparison of international guidelines on prostate-specific antigen testing

OBJECTIVE

To summarise and compare the key recommendations on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer, and so highlight where more evidence is required to facilitate consistent recommendations.

METHODS

The Medline database and websites of 18 national screening organisations and professional associations were searched between January 2010 and November 2020 to identify screening guidelines published in English, considering recent clinical trials.

RESULTS

Population-based PSA testing of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Guidelines emphasize shared patient-clinician decision making. For 'average-risk' men choosing to be screened, the recommended age varies from 50-55 to 70 years, alongside consideration of life expectancy (ranging from 7-15 years). Screening intervals, when specified, are biennial (most common), annual, or determined from baseline PSA. The earliest age for screening high-risk men (frequently defined as of African descent or with a family history of prostate cancer) is 40 years, but recommendations often defer to clinical judgement.

CONCLUSIONS

Population screening of asymptomatic men is not widely recommended. Instead, balancing the potential harms and benefits of PSA testing is endorsed. Variation between guidelines stems from differing interpretations of key trials and could lead to clinician-dependent screening views. The development of clinical decision aids and international consensus on guidelines may help reduce national and international variation on how men are counselled.

Racial disparities in Black men with prostate cancer: A literature review

Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer (PCa), with earlier presentation, more aggressive disease, and higher mortality rates versus White men. Furthermore, Black men have less access to PCa treatment and experience longer delays between diagnosis and treatment. In this review, the authors discuss the factors contributing to racial disparities and present solutions to improve access to care and increase clinical trial participation among Black men with PCa. Racial disparities observed among Black men with PCa are multifaceted, evolving from institutional racism. Cultural factors include generalized mistrust of the health care system, poor physician-patient communication, lack of information on PCa and treatment options, fear of PCa diagnosis, and perceived societal stigma of the disease. In the United States, geographic trends in racial disparities have been observed. Economic factors, e.g., cost of care, recovery time, and cancer debt, play an important role in racial disparities observed in PCa treatment and outcomes. Racial diversity is often lacking in genomic and precision medicine studies. Black men are largely underrepresented in key phase 3 PCa trials and may be less willing to enroll in clinical trials due to lack of awareness, lack of diversity in clinical trial research teams, and bias of health care providers to recommend clinical research. The authors propose solutions to address these factors that include educating clinicians and institutions on the barriers Black men experience, increasing the diversity of health care providers and clinical research teams, and empowering Black men to be involved in their treatment, which are keys to creating equity for Black men with PCa. LAY SUMMARY: Prostate cancer negatively affects Black men more than men of other races. The history of segregation and mistreatment in the health care system may contribute to mistrust among Black men. Outcomes are worse for Black men because they are less likely to be screened or to receive treatment for prostate cancer. Black men also are unlikely to participate in clinical research, making it difficult for investigators to understand how Black men are affected by prostate cancer. Suggestions for addressing these differences include teaching physicians and nurses about the issues Black men experience getting treatment and improving how Black men get information on prostate cancer.

Prostate Cancer Screening and Young Black Men: Can Early Communication Avoid Later Health Disparities?

This study aims to determine if younger men, across racial and ethnic groups, discussed the benefits/risks/harms of PSA screening with health care professionals. Publicly available data were obtained from the Health Information National Trends Survey https://hints.cancer.gov/ in March 2019. Cross-sectional analysis of 518 men between the ages of 18 and 49 years from men who completed the survey between October 2011 and February 2012 (HINTS cycle 4) was performed. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and discussions around PSA. Less than 10% of the participants reported a prior PSA; Black and Hispanic men were more likely compared with White men. Compared with White men, Black and other race men reported receiving less communications from some doctors recommending PSA screening (OR_black: 0.16, 95% CI_black: 0.07-0.38; OR_other: 0.10, 95% CI_other: 0.04-0.25), and that no one is sure PSA testing saves lives (OR_black: 0.49, 95% CI_black: 0.04-6.91; OR_other: 0.17, 95% CI_other: 0.06-0.48). Minority men, while more likely to have had a PSA, were less likely to be told of the harms and benefits of PSA testing, compared with White men. Increasing communication surrounding screening advantages and disadvantages between providers and patients can increase awareness and knowledge among younger men. In a post-COVID-19 environment, communication regarding the return to preventative screenings within vulnerable populations is an important message to convey. Research shows preventive screenings have dropped across all population groups due to the pandemic yet the decline disproportionately affects Black and other minority men.

Men's perception of information and psychological distress in the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer: a comparative mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies indicate that men experience frustration and uncertainty when confronted with an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) test and during further diagnostics for prostate cancer. The novel Stockholm3 test is an algorithm-based test that combines plasma protein biomarkers, genetic markers and clinical variables in predicting the risk of PCa. The test was introduced in a western part of Norway as a new tool for detecting prostate cancer. This study aimed to explore and compare men's perception of information and possible experience of distress between a PSA group and a Stockholm3 group during the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer.

METHODS

This study is a part of the trailing research evaluating the impact of the change from PSA to Stockholm3. It is a multicenter study using a comparative mixed method design. Data were collected in a PSA group (n = 130) and a Stockholm3 group (n = 120) between 2017 and 2019. Quantitative data were collected using questionnaires and qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews (n = 20). The quantitative and qualitative data were analysed and compared separately and then merged in a side-by-side discussion. The study adheres to the GRAMMS guidelines for reporting mixed-methods research.

RESULTS

Compared with the PSA group, men in the Stockholm3 group reported that the information from the general practitioners was better. Similarly, men in the Stockholm3 group were more likely to indicate that they had received sufficient information regarding how examinations would be conducted. No differences were found between the groups regarding waiting time and distress. Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of the two groups: "Information affects the experience of comprehension", "Stepping into the world of the healthcare system", and "Periodically feelings of distress".

CONCLUSION

The Stockholm3 test may facilitate the provision of information to patients. However, some patients in both groups experienced distress and would benefit from more information and additional support from healthcare professionals. Routines that ensure sufficient information from the interdisciplinary healthcare team should be of priority during the diagnostic phase of prostate cancer in order to provide patients with predictability and to avoid unnecessary distress.

Preliminary Evaluation of a Citizen Scientist Educational Curriculum Aimed at Engaging Black Men in Lung Cancer Early Detection Screening

This article describes an educational program to engage African American men as citizen scientists (CSs) and future research partners in a lung cancer screening project. We provide an overview of the curriculum used, the structure and format of the educational sessions, and associated educational outcomes. Furthermore, we describe lessons learned in the engagement of African American men as CS in community-based lung-health equity research. The CS educational program included five group-based sessions delivered through zoom. The educational curriculum was adapted from the University of Florida Citizen Scientist program and tailored to address lung health and the contextual experiences of African American men. Each session lasted 90 minutes. Pre- and post-test measures were collected to examine changes in knowledge, comfort, health literacy, research interests, and medical mistrust. Eight African American men completed the CS educational program. Attendance rates were high for each session (100%). Seven participants completed additional human subject research certification. Improvements were observed from pre- to post-test in participants' level of knowledge, comfort, and health literacy but not medical mistrust. CS reported the most interest in participating in research aimed to identify important community strengths and problems. Study findings suggest that it was feasible to deliver an online citizen scientist educational program designed to prepare participants to serve as partners in a lung cancer screening intervention for African American men. Results suggest the educational program has the potential to improve key outcomes including completion of regulatory training and increased research-related knowledge, comfort, and health literacy.

Cancer statistics for African American/Black People 2022

African American/Black individuals have a disproportionate cancer burden, including the highest mortality and the lowest survival of any racial/ethnic group for most cancers. Every 3 years, the American Cancer Society estimates the number of new cancer cases and deaths for Black people in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence (herein through 2018), mortality (through 2019), survival, screening, and risk factors using population-based data from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2022, there will be approximately 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths among Black people in the United States. During the most recent 5-year period, Black men had a 6% higher incidence rate but 19% higher mortality than White men overall, including an approximately 2-fold higher risk of death from myeloma, stomach cancer, and prostate cancer. The overall cancer mortality disparity is narrowing between Black and White men because of a steeper drop in Black men for lung and prostate cancers. However, the decline in prostate cancer mortality in Black men slowed from 5% annually during 2010 through 2014 to 1.3% during 2015 through 2019, likely reflecting the 5% annual increase in advanced-stage diagnoses since 2012. Black women have an 8% lower incidence rate than White women but a 12% higher mortality; further, mortality rates are 2-fold higher for endometrial cancer and 41% higher for breast cancer despite similar or lower incidence rates. The wide breast cancer disparity reflects both later stage diagnosis (57% localized stage vs 67% in White women) and lower 5-year survival overall (82% vs 92%, respectively) and for every stage of disease (eg, 20% vs 30%, respectively, for distant stage). Breast cancer surpassed lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer death among Black women in 2019. Targeted interventions are needed to reduce stark cancer inequalities in the Black community.

How Much Information Do Icelandic Men Receive on Pros and Cons of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Prior to Undergoing Testing?

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for asymptomatic men is neither encouraged nor discouraged in most countries; however, shared decision-making is emphasized prior to PSA testing. The objective of this study was to examine to what extent Icelandic men receive information about the pros and cons of PSA testing. Furthermore, to explore if patient–provider communication about pros and cons of PSA testing has improved in the last decade during which time more emphasis has been placed on shared decision-making. All Icelandic men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the years 2015 to 2020 were invited to participate, and a total of 471 out of 1002 men participated (response rate 47.0%). Participants’ age ranged from 51 to 95 years (M = 71.9, SD = 7.3). Only half of the men received information about the pros and cons of PSA testing, a third did not receive any information prior to testing and, alarmingly, 22.2% of the men did not even know that they were being tested. A majority of the participants lacked knowledge about the testing with half of the men reporting that they had no knowledge about pros and cons of PSA testing prior to testing. The findings have major public health relevance as they indicate that information provided prior to PSA testing continue to be deficient and that there is a pressing need for interventions that educate men about the benefits and limitations of PSA testing before men undergo medical procedures that can seriously affect their quality of life.

Examination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in military and civilian men: analysis of the 2018 behavioral risk factor surveillance system

PURPOSE

To determine whether military men report different prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates than civilian men and if shared decision-making (SDM) is associated with PSA screening.

METHODS

We used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and included 101,901 men (26,363 military and 75,538 civilian men) in the analysis conducted in 2021. We conducted binomial logistic regression analyses to determine covariate-adjusted associations between military status and receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years. We then added patient reports of SDM to the model. Finally, we looked at the joint effects of military status and SDM on the receipt of a PSA test in the last 2 years.

RESULTS

Military men had 1.1 times the odds of PSA testing compared to civilian men (95% CI 1.1, 1.2) after adjusting for SDM and sociodemographic and health covariates. When examining the joint effect of military status and SDM, military and civilian men had over three times the odds of receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years if they had reported SDM (OR 3.5 and OR 3.4, respectively) compared to civilian men who did not experience SDM.

CONCLUSION

Military men are slightly more likely to report receiving a PSA test in the last 2 years compared to civilian men. Additionally, results show SDM plays a role in the receipt of a PSA test in both populations. These findings can serve as a foundation for tailored interventions to promote appropriate SDM for PSA screening in civilian, active duty, and veteran healthcare systems.

Change in individual physicians' screening mammography completion rates following the updated USPSTF guideline supporting shared decision making: An observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To understand changes in physician screening practices in response to the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation supporting shared decision making (SDM) for mammography in women aged 40-49 years.

METHODS

We assessed screening completion rates for physicians in the Cleveland Clinic Health System pre-2009 (2006-2008) and post-2009 (2010-2015), and rates for physicians new to the system post-2009. We used mixed effects logistic regression to estimate the odds of a woman receiving screening post-2009. If physicians practiced SDM, we hypothesized their screening rates would change after 2009. To test this, we included each physician's pre-2009 screening rate as a predictor in the model.

RESULTS

Among 125 physicians, the screening rate increased from 40% to 45% from pre-2009 to post-2009. For physicians new to the health system post-2009 the rate was 32%. In the mixed effects model (N = 17,007), the strongest predictor of mammography receipt among patients post-2009 was their physician's pre-2009 screening rate (aOR:3.57 per 10% increase in pre-2009 rate; 95%CI:1.69-7.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Whether a woman received a mammogram post-2009 was highly associated with her physicians' pre-2009 screening rate, suggesting physicians are not individualizing screening decisions via SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians may need support to effectively practice SDM.

Evaluating Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Young African American Men With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite higher risks associated with prostate cancer, young African American men are poorly represented in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) trials, which limits proper evidence-based guidance. We evaluated the impact of PSA screening, alongside primary care provider utilization, on prostate cancer outcomes for these patients.

METHODS

We identified African American men aged 40-55 years, diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2004 and 2017 within the Veterans Health Administration. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity scores were used in multivariable models to assess PSA screening on PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis. Lead-time adjusted Fine-Gray regression evaluated PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), with noncancer death as competing events. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

The cohort included 4726 patients. Mean age was 51.8 years, with 84-month median follow-up. There were 1057 (22.4%) with no PSA screening prior to diagnosis. Compared with no screening, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly reduced odds of PSA levels higher than 20 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.63; P < .001), Gleason score of 8 or higher (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.88; P < .001), and metastatic disease at diagnosis (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.64; P < .001), and decreased PCSM (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76; P  < .001). Primary care provider visits displayed similar effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Among young African American men diagnosed with prostate cancer, PSA screening was associated with statistically significantly lower risk of PSA levels higher than 20, Gleason score of 8 or higher, and metastatic disease at diagnosis and statistically significantly reduced risk of PCSM. However, the retrospective design limits precise estimation of screening effects. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Healthcare professionals' behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals' implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves.

RESULTS

Eight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals' behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.

Delivering the unexpected-Information needs for PSA screening from Men's perspective: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Making decisions about PSA screening tests is challenging, as it requires both knowledge of the possible benefits and harms of screening and an individual assessment of the patient's values. Our research explores how much and what information men perceive to be necessary with regard to screening for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To explore men's information and associated needs for decision making in PSA testing.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed 32 men (aged 55-69) about their decision making on PSA screening following counselling with a Decision Aid at their GP's or urologist's practice in Germany.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Men's expressed needs for decision making in PSA testing.

METHODS

All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by framework analysis.

RESULTS

Comprehensive pre-screening counselling is needed. For the men in our study, information about test (in)accuracy, the benefit-harm balance and consequences of the test were relevant and surprising. Additional needs were for interpretation support, a take-home summary and time for deliberation. For several men, their physician's attitude was of interest. After being well-informed, most men felt empowered to make a preference-based decision on their own.

DISCUSSION

Men were surprised by what they learned, especially regarding the accuracy and possible harms of screening. There is large variation in the breadth and depth of information needed, and some controversy regarding the consequences of testing.

CONCLUSION AND PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

A core set of information should be offered before men make their first PSA screening decision. Information about biopsy and associated side-effects could follow in a short form, with details only on request. Knowledge about a high rate of false-positive test results beforehand might help men handle a suspicious test result.

Does Shared Decision-Making for Prostate Cancer Screening Among African American Men Happen? It Depends on Who You Ask

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for prostate cancer screening, but little is known about how this process is perceived by patients and providers. SDM is especially important for African American men, who are at high risk for the disease.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate agreement in SDM ratings among patients, providers, and objective observers.

METHOD

African American men ages 45-70 were recruited from primary care practices to participate in a study evaluating a decision aid (DA). Immediately after using the DA, patients proceeded to primary care appointments. Afterwards, patients and physicians completed surveys assessing perceptions about SDM. Clinical visits were also audio-recorded and coded to assess SDM.

RESULTS

Mean scores on SDM measures among patients were 73.2 (SD = 27.5, 95% CI 55.71-90.62), 83.1 among physicians (SD = 7.8 95% CI 78.14-88.06), and 67.1 among objective raters (SD = 36.8 95% CI 43.72-90.45). Among patient-provider dyads, mean agreement was 49.9%.

CONCLUSION

Patients, physicians, and objective observers perceived SDM differently. Understanding discordant experiences of SDM is vital for improving clinical guidance about SDM especially among African Americans who have historically faced healthcare discrimination and mistrust. DAs, particularly for African American men, should incorporate strategies to empower patients to advocate for their communication needs and preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials identifier number: NCT02787434.

Intersecting Structural Oppression and Black Sexual Minority Men's Health

INTRODUCTION

Although evidence indicates that Black gay, bisexual, and other sexual minority men experience vast psychological and behavioral health inequities, most research has focused on individual rather than structural drivers of these inequities. This study examines the associations between structural racism and anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer policies and the psychological and behavioral health of Black and White sexual minority men.

METHODS

Participants were an Internet-based U.S. national sample of 1,379 Black and 5,537 White sexual minority men during 2017-2018. Analysis occurred in 2019-2020. Structural equation modeling tested the associations from indicators of structural racism, anti‒lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer policies, and their interaction to anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, perceived burdensomeness, heavy drinking, and HIV testing frequency. Separate models for Black and White sexual minority men adjusted for contextual and individual covariates.

RESULTS

For Black participants, structural racism was positively associated with anxiety symptoms (β=0.20, SE=0.10, p=0.04), perceived burdensomeness (β=0.42, SE=0.09, p<0.001), and heavy drinking (β=0.23, SE=0.10, p=0.01). Anti‒lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer policies were positively associated with anxiety symptoms (β=0.08, SE=0.04, p=0.03), perceived burdensomeness (β=0.20, SE=0.04, p<0.001), and heavy drinking (β=0.10, SE=0.04, p=0.01) and were negatively associated with HIV testing frequency (β= -0.14, SE=0.07, p=0.04). Results showed significant interaction effects, such that the positive associations between structural racism and both perceived burdensomeness (β=0.38, SE=0.08, p≤0.001) and heavy drinking (β=0.22, SE=0.07, p=0.003) were stronger for individuals living in states with high levels of anti‒lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer policies. Neither of the oppression variables nor their interaction was significantly associated with outcomes for White sexual minority men.

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the intersectional nature of structural oppression and suggest that racist and anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer policies must be repealed to rectify health inequities facing Black sexual minority men.

Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening

In recommending and offering screening, health services make a health claim ('it's good for you'). This article considers ethical aspects of establishing the case for cancer screening, building a service programme, monitoring its operation, improving its quality and integrating it with medical progress. The value of (first) screening is derived as a function of key parameters: prevalence of the target lesion in the detectable pre-clinical phase, the validity of the test and the respective net utilities or values attributed to four health states-true positives, false positives, false negatives and true negatives. Decision makers as diverse as public regulatory agencies, medical associations, health insurance funds or individual screenees can legitimately come up with different values even when presented with the same evidence base. The main intended benefit of screening is the reduction of cause-specific mortality. All-cause mortality is not measurably affected. Overdiagnosis and false-positive tests with their sequelae are the main harms. Harms and benefits accrue to distinct individuals. Hence the health claim is an invitation to a lottery with benefits for few and harms to many, a violation of the non-maleficence principle. While a public decision maker may still propose a justified screening programme, respect for individual rights and values requires preference-sensitive, autonomy-enhancing educational materials-even at the expense of programme effectiveness. Opt-in recommendations and more 'consumer-oriented' qualitative research are needed.

Does shared decision making increase prostate screening uptake in countries with a low prevalence of prostate cancer?

BACKGROUND

Men over 50 should discuss the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing with their doctors.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether shared decision making (SDM) increases the uptake of prostate cancer screening practices among Saudi men.

METHODS

This community-based study recruited men aged ≥ 50 years between January and April 2019. Sociodemographic characteristics, history, and current medical condition information were collected. SDM information with regards to prostate cancer screening was discussed.

RESULTS

In total, 2034 Saudi men, aged between 50 and 88 years, agreed to participate in the current study. Prostate examination for early detection of cancer was recommended for 35.4% (720) of subjects. Of the subjects, 23.3% (473) reported that the physicians discussed the advantages and benefits of PSA testing, whereas only 5.6% (114) stated that the physicians explained the disadvantages and drawbacks of PSA testing.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that less than one fourth discussed the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with their physicians; of these, less than one third underwent PSA blood tests. Improvements are needed in SDM for and against PSA screening. SDM does not affect the intensity of PSA testing. Primary health care physicians should be actively involved in the SDM process.

Effect of a Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid for African-American Men in Primary Care Settings

BACKGROUND

African-American men have an elevated risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer. Shared decision-making (SDM) about prostate cancer screening is recommended but does not always occur.

METHODS

We pilot-tested an online decision aid (DA) in primary care settings using a pre/postevaluation design among African-American men ages 45 to 70 years. Men completed surveys before and after using the DA, which had interactive segments (e.g., values clarification) and provided individualized assessment of prostate cancer risk. Primary outcomes included prostate cancer knowledge, confidence in ability to make informed decisions, decisional conflict, and satisfaction with the decision. Immediately after the clinical visit, patients reported the degree to which they were engaged by their provider in SDM.

RESULTS

Among this sample of men (n = 49), use of the DA was associated with increased knowledge about prostate cancer [mean = 55.3% vs. 71.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.8-22.1; P < 0.001], reduced decisional conflict (mean = 33.4 vs. 23.6; 95% CI, -18.1 to -1.6; P = 0.002) on a scale from 0 to 100, and a decreased preference to be screened (88% vs. 69%; 95% CI, 0.09-0.64; P = 0.01). Most (89%) reported that the DA prepared them well/very well for SDM with their provider. Following the clinical visit with providers, scores on perceived involvement in SDM were 68.1 (SD 29.1) on a 0 to 100 scale.

CONCLUSIONS

The DA improved men's knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and promoted the perception of being prepared for SDM.

IMPACT

Findings suggest that use of an online DA to improve SDM outcomes warrants further testing in a future trial.

Pre-implementation Evaluation of PARTNER-MH: A Mental Healthcare Disparity Intervention for Minority Veterans in the VHA

To design PARTNER-MH, a peer-led, patient navigation program for implementation in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental health care settings, we conducted a pre-implementation evaluation during intervention development to assess stakeholders' views of the intervention and to explore implementation factors critical to its future adoption. This is a convergent mixed-methods study that involved qualitative semi-structured interviews and survey data. Data collection was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We interviewed and administered the surveys to 23 peers and 10 supervisors from 12 midwestern VHA facilities. We used deductive and inductive approaches to analyze the qualitative data. We also conducted descriptive analysis and Fisher Exact Test to compare peers and supervisors' survey responses. We triangulated findings to refine the intervention. Overall, participants viewed PARTNER-MH favorably. However, they saw the intervention's focus on minority Veterans and social determinants of health framework as potential barriers, believing this could negatively affect the packaging of the intervention, complicate its delivery process, and impact its adoption. They also viewed clinic structures, available resources, and learning climate as potential barriers. Peers and supervisors' selections and discussions of CFIR items were similar. Our findings informed PARTNER-MH development and helped identify factors that could impact its implementation. This project is responsive to the increasing recognition of the need to incorporate implementation science in healthcare disparities research. Understanding the resistance to the intervention's focus on minority Veterans and the potential barriers presented by contextual factors positions us to adjust the intervention prior to testing, in an effort to maximize implementation success.

Preparing African American Men to Make Informed Prostate Cancer Screening Decisions: Development and Pilot Testing of an Interactive Online Decision Aid

BACKGROUND

African American men are at a higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer compared to white men. The serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test has a high risk of false-positive results and overdiagnosis; therefore, it is not routinely recommended. Rather, men are encouraged to make individualized decisions with their medical providers, after being fully informed about its potential benefits, limitations, and risks.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the development and pilot testing of an interactive Web-based decision aid (DA; Prostate Cancer Screening Preparation [PCSPrep]) for African American men, designed to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening.

METHODS

Four focus groups (n=33) were conducted to assess men's reactions to DAs developed in prior studies and gather information to modify the content and format. The pilot test employed a pre-posttest evaluation design. A convenience sample of 41 men aged 45-70 years with no history of prostate cancer was recruited from community settings. Participants completed online surveys before and after using PCSPrep that assessed prostate cancer screening knowledge, decision self-efficacy, decisional conflict, and preparation for decision making.

RESULTS

Use of PCSPrep was associated with a significant increase in prostate cancer knowledge (49% vs 62% correct responses; P<.001), and men also experienced less decisional conflict (24 vs 15 on a scale of 0-100; P=.008). No changes in self-efficacy about decision making or screening preferences were observed. Most men (81%) reported that using PCSPrep prepared them to make informed decisions in partnership with their provider.

CONCLUSIONS

PCSPrep was an acceptable DA that improved men's knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and promoted the perception of being prepared for shared decision making. Further research is needed to test the DA in a larger randomized trial.

Shared decision making and prostate-specific antigen based prostate cancer screening following the 2018 update of USPSTF screening guideline

BACKGROUND

Previous study reported shared decision making was underused in PSA-based prostate cancer screening. In mid-2018, the US Preventive Service Task Force recommended shared decision making (SDM) before PSA-based prostate cancer screening among men aged 55-69 year while remained against PSA testing in men aged 70 or older. The objective of this study is to examine recent changes in SDM and prostate cancer screening following recent USPSTF recommendations.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study among men aged 50 years or older were conducted using 2015 and 2018 National Health Interview Survey data (n = 10,926). Outcomes included self-reported PSA testing for prostate cancer screening last year, and if yes, whether respondent ever had a discussion with the healthcare provider about its advantages and disadvantages. Analyses were stratified by respondent's age (50-54 vs. 55-69 vs. 70+).

RESULTS

Routine PSA screening rates remained stable from 34.3% in 2015 to 35.4% in first half of 2018, and 36.0% in second half of 2018 (p trend = 0.57). A similar pattern was found in men ≥70 years (p trend = 0.98). Receipt of SDM increased in men aged ≥50 years from 30.5% in 2015 to 33.6% in first half of 2018, and 36.7% in second half of 2018 (p trend = 0.002). The increase was most prominent in men aged 55 to 69 years (31.6, 36.9, and 40.2% in 2015, first half of 2018 and second half of 2018 respectively; p trend = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2015 and 2018, there was no significant increase in the PSA-based prostate cancer screening. However, a significant increasing trend in SDM was observed, especially in men aged 55-69 years.

Prostate cancer screening: what do men know, think and do about their risk? exploring the opinions of men in an urban area in Lagos State, Nigeria: a mixed methods survey

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men aged 40 years and older. Incidence and mortality rates are higher in African men. PCa is amenable to early detection by screening which can prevent and reduce cancer deaths. Late-stage presentation and diagnosis often occur due to poor screening practices. This study assessed the knowledge, attitude, prevalence and barriers towards PCa screening among males in an urban area in Nigeria using a mixed method approach.

Methods

This cross-sectional descriptive study used quantitative and qualitative methods among men aged 40 years and older. A pretested structured questionnaire was used to interview 344 respondents through multi-stage sampling. Additionally, two focus group sessions were held using a pre-tested guide.

Results

Respondents were between 40-89 years with a mean age of 52.8 ± 9.9 years. Majority (54.9%) had poor knowledge of prostate cancer and its screening methods however, 65.7% expressed positive attitudes towards screening. Only 73 (21.2%) had ever been screened. The focus groups showed that respondents expressed a willingness to undergo PCa screening. The main barriers to screening were the fears of a positive result, ignorance and financial constraints. Participants preferred male physicians during digital rectal examinations.

Conclusion

Respondents showed poor levels of knowledge. They expressed positive attitudes towards screening. However, this was not translated into practice. Public health interventions should educate men about benefits of early detection while addressing fears of positive findings and gender biases during rectal examinations. Efforts at providing low-cost alternatives for PCa screening are needed.

Would You Recommend Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for This Patient?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Prostate cancer is the third most common cancer type in the United States overall, accounting for 9.5% of new cancer cases and 5% of cancer deaths. The goal of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening is to identify early-stage disease that can be treated successfully. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reviewed evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening and treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. It found that PSA-based screening in men aged 55 to 69 years prevents approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over 13 years per 1000 men screened and 3 cases of metastatic cancer per 1000 men screened, with no reduction in all-cause mortality. No benefit was found for PSA-based screening in men aged 70 years and older. On the basis of its review, the USPSTF concluded that the decision for men aged 55 to 69 years to have PSA-based screening should be an individual one and should include a discussion of the potential benefits and harms. Here, 2 experts-an internist and a urologist-discuss the key points of a shared decision-making conversation about PSA-based prostate cancer screening, the PSA-based screening strategy that optimizes benefit and minimizes harm, and the PSA threshold at which they would recommend further diagnostic testing.

Engaging African American Men as Citizen Scientists to Validate a Prostate Cancer Biomarker: Work-in-Progress

BACKGROUND

African American men (AAM) are under-represented in prostate cancer (PCa) research despite known disparities. Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has low specificity for high-grade PCa leading to PCa over diagnosis. The Prostate Health Index (PHI) has higher specificity for lethal PCa but needs validation in AAM. Engaging AAM as citizen scientists (CSs) may improve participation of AAM in PCa research.Results and Lessons Learned: Eight CSs completed all training modules and 139 AAM were recruited. Challenges included equity in research leadership among multiple principal investigators (PIs) and coordinating CSs trainings.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging AAM CSs can support engaging/recruiting AAM in PCa biomarker validation research. Equity among multiple stakeholders can be challenging, but proves beneficial in engaging AAM in research.

OBJECTIVES

Assess feasibility of mobilizing CSs to recruit AAM as controls for PHI PCa validation biomarker study.

METHODS

We highlight social networks/assets of stakeholders, CSs curriculum development/implementation, and recruitment of healthy controls for PHI validation.

Prostate Cancer Screening among High-Risk Black Men

We explored potential barriers and facilitators for prostate cancer screening choices among high-risk Black men. In our sample of 264 Black men over 45 years of age living in the U.S. who met the American Cancer Society criteria for screening, we found that only 49.6% had ever been screened. We investigated potential barriers including screening intention, access to care, medical mistrust, and fatalism. Potential facilitating factors investigated were provider-patient conversations encompassing the pros and cons of screening, ethnicity taken into account, insurance, and previous prostate cancer screening. Recommendations and resources are suggested to increase screening of high-risk Black men.

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.

Physician Consultations, Prostate Cancer Knowledge, and PSA Screening of African American Men in the Era of Shared Decision-Making

African American (AA)/Black men are more likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer (PCa), yet less likely to be screened despite guidelines espousing shared decision-making regarding PCa screening and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Given the documented racial disparities in PCa incidence and mortality, engaging interactions with physicians are especially important for AA/Black men. Thus, this study evaluated occurrence of physician-patient conversations among AA/Black men, and whether such conversations were associated with PCa knowledge. We also quantified the serum PSA values of participants who had, and had not, discussed testing with their physicians. Self-identified AA/Black men living in California and New York, ages 21-85, donated blood and completed a comprehensive sociodemographic and health survey ( n = 414). Less than half (45.2%) of participants had discussed PCa screening with their physicians. Multivariate analyses were used to assess whether physician-patient conversations predicted PCa knowledge after adjusting for key sociodemographic/economic and health-care variables. Increased PCa knowledge was correlated with younger age, higher income and education, and having discussed the pros and cons of PCa testing with a physician. Serum PSA values were measured by ELISA. Higher-than-normal PSA values were found in 38.5% of men who had discussed PCa screening with a physician and 29.1% who had not discussed PCa screening. Our results suggest that physician-AA/Black patient conversations regarding PCa risk need improvement. Encouraging more effective communication between physicians and AA/Black men concerning PCa screening and PSA testing has the potential to reduce PCa health disparities.

Recent Patterns in Shared Decision Making for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing in the United States

PURPOSE

Previous studies report infrequent use of shared decision making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. It is unknown whether this pattern has changed recently considering increased emphasis on shared decision making in prostate cancer screening recommendations. Thus, the objective of this study is to examine recent changes in shared decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study among men aged 50 years and older in the United States using 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data (n = 9,598). Changes in receipt of shared decision making were expressed as adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Analyses were stratified on PSA testing (recent [in the past year] or no testing). Elements of shared decision making assessed included the patient being informed about the advantages only, advantages and disadvantages, and full shared decision making (advantages, disadvantages, and uncertainties).

RESULTS

Among men with recent PSA testing, 58.5% and 62.6% reported having received ≥1 element of shared decision making in 2010 and 2015, respectively (P = .054, aPR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11). Between 2010 and 2015, being told only about the advantages of PSA testing significantly declined (aPR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96) and full shared decision making prevalence significantly increased (aPR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.28-1.79) in recently tested men. Among men without prior PSA testing, 10% reported ≥1 element of shared decision making, which did not change with time.

CONCLUSION

Between 2010 and 2015, there was no increase in shared decision making among men with recent PSA testing though there was a shift away from only being told about the advantages of PSA testing towards full shared decision making. Many men receiving PSA testing did not receive shared decision making.

Health Literacy and Health-Care Engagement as Predictors of Shared Decision-Making Among Adult Information Seekers in the USA: a Secondary Data Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey

The objective of this study is to examine the relationship between health literacy, health-care engagement, and shared decision-making (SDM). We analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (cycle 3) data for 1604 information seekers who had one or more non-emergency room health-care visits in the previous year. SDM was more than two times higher among adults who "always" versus "usually/sometimes/never" take health information to doctor visits (OR = 2.54; 95 % CI 1.19-5.43). There was a twofold increase in SDM among adults who were "completely/very confident" versus "somewhat/a little/not confident" about finding health information (OR = 2.03; 95 % CI 1.37-3.02). Differences in SDM between adults who understood health information and those who had difficulty understanding health information were not statistically significant (OR = 1.39; 95 % CI 0.93-2.07). A Healthy People 2020 goal is to increase SDM. Previous research has suggested that SDM may improve health outcomes across the continuum of care. Only about half of adults report always being involved in health-care decisions. Even more alarming is the fact that SDM has not increased from 2003 to 2013. Our findings suggest that increasing health literacy has the potential to increase health-care engagement and subsequently increase SDM. Effective intervention strategies are needed to improve health literacy and promote health-care engagement.

Leveraging the Family Influence of Women in Prostate Cancer Efforts Targeting African American Men

BACKGROUND

Incidence rate of prostate cancer among African American (AA) men is 1.6 times that in White men. Prevention efforts in this population have typically been through faith-based organizations and barber shops, with a few including significant others. Culturally, women are known to have a strong influence in the AA family. The current study assessed prostate cancer knowledge and explored perceptions on the roles of women in prostate cancer prevention.

METHODS

To assess prostate cancer knowledge, a 25-item questionnaire was administered to convenience samples of AA women (n = 297) and men (n = 199). Four focus groups were conducted to explore perceptions on the role of women in prostate cancer prevention.

RESULTS

Men had a higher mean score (13.2; max of 25) than women (11.4) for knowledge of prostate cancer. For the men, higher knowledge scores were associated with having a family member diagnosed with prostate cancer and likelihood to engage healthcare providers about prostate cancer (p < 0.05). Themes from the focus groups included education/information resource, support and encouragement, instituting a "culture" of regular primary care, modeling healthcare-seeking behavior, surveillance and monitoring, motivation, and influencing diet. The major barrier to women engaging in the roles identified was limited knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Including women in educational interventions may yield added benefits particularly in encouraging AA men to seek regular primary care. This affords men opportunities for dialog with healthcare providers about prostate cancer and informed decision making regarding screening.

The Effects of Race and Racial Concordance on Patient-Physician Communication: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

Racial disparities exist in health care, even when controlling for relevant sociodemographic variables. Recent data suggest disparities in patient-physician communication may also contribute to racial disparities in health care. This study aimed to systematically review studies examining the effect of black race and racial concordance on patient-physician communication.

METHODS

A comprehensive search using the PRISMA guidelines was conducted across seven online databases between 1995 and 2016. The search resulted in 4672 records for review and 40 articles for final inclusion in the review. Studies were included when the sample consisted of black patients in healthcare contexts and the communication measure was observational or patient-reported. Data were extracted by pairs of authors who independently coded articles and reconciled discrepancies. Results were synthesized according to predictor (race or racial concordance) and communication domain.

RESULTS

Studies were heterogeneous in health contexts and communication measures. Results indicated that black patients consistently experienced poorer communication quality, information-giving, patient participation, and participatory decision-making than white patients. Results were mixed for satisfaction, partnership building, length of visit, and talk-time ratio. Racial concordance was more clearly associated with better communication across all domains except quality, for which there was no effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite mixed results due to measurement heterogeneity, results of the present review highlight the importance of training physicians and patients to engage in higher quality communication with black and racially discordant patients by focusing on improving patient-centeredness, information-giving, partnership building, and patient engagement in communication processes.

What is a good medical decision? A research agenda guided by perspectives from multiple stakeholders

Informed and shared decision making are critical aspects of patient-centered care, which has contributed to an emphasis on decision support interventions to promote good medical decision making. However, researchers and healthcare providers have not reached a consensus on what defines a good decision, nor how to evaluate it. This position paper, informed by conference sessions featuring diverse stakeholders held at the 2015 Society of Behavioral Medicine and Society for Medical Decision Making annual meetings, describes key concepts that influence the decision making process itself and that may change what it means to make a good decision: interpersonal factors, structural constraints, affective influences, and values clarification methods. This paper also proposes specific research questions within each of these priority areas, with the goal of moving medical decision making research to a more comprehensive definition of a good medical decision, and enhancing the ability to measure and improve the decision making process.