Background. The efficacy of prostate cancer (CaP) screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is debated. Most medical organizations recommend that men make individual, informed decisions about whether to undergo screening. Informed decision making (IDM) requires adequate knowledge about CaP as well as the risks and benefits of screening; confidence in the ability to participate in decision making at a personally desired level (decision self-efficacy); and decision making that reflects one’s values and preferences (decisional consistency). Methods. Baseline data from a randomized trial in 12 worksites were analyzed. Men aged 45+ (n = 812) completed surveys documenting screening history, screening preferences and decisions, CaP knowledge, decision self-efficacy, and decisional consistency. Psychosocial and demographic correlates of IDM were also assessed. Results. Approximately half of the sample had a prior PSA test, although only 35% reported having made an explicit screening decision. Across the sample, CaP knowledge was low (mean = 56%), although decision self-efficacy was high (mean = 78%), and the majority of men (81%) made decisions consistent with their stated values. Compared with those who were undecided, men who made an explicit screening decision had significantly higher levels of knowledge, greater decisional self-efficacy, and were more consistent in terms of making a decision in alignment with their values. They tended to be white, have high levels of income and education, and had discussed screening with their health care provider. Conclusions. Many men undergo CaP screening without being fully informed about the decision. These findings support the need for interventions aimed at improving IDM about screening, particularly among men of color, those with lower levels of income and education, and those who have not discussed screening with their provider.
American Cancer Society. Overview: Cervical cancer: how many women get cancer of the cervix. Washington (DC): ACS; 2008.
2.
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures for African Americans, 2007–2008. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2007.
3.
AndrioleGLCrawfordEDGrubbRL3rd. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–9.
4.
SchroderFHHugossonJRoobolMJ. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.
5.
BarryM. Screening for prostate cancer—the controversy that refuses to die. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1351–3.
6.
Anonymous. Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):915–6.
7.
Anonymous. Summaries for patients: screening for prostate cancer, a recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):I48.
8.
American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(6):480–4.
9.
BrissPARimerBKReilleyB, Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Promoting informed decision making about cancer screening: what can communities and health care systems accomplish? Conceptual background and a systematic review. Am J Prevent Med. 2004;26(1):67–80.
10.
RimerBKBrissPAZellerPKChanECWoolfSH. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?Cancer. 2004;101(5 suppl):1214–28.
11.
Finney-RuttenLSquiersLTreimanK. Requests for information by family and friends of cancer patients: evidence from the national cancer institute’s cancer information service. J Psycho-Oncology. 2005:664–72.
12.
RossLECoatesRJBreenNUhlerRJPotoskyALBlackmanD. Prostate-specific antigen test use reported in the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Prevent Med2004;38:732–44.
13.
RossLETaylorYJRichardsonLCHowardDL. Patterns in prostate-specific antigen test use and digital rectal examinations in the behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2002-2006. J Nat Med Assoc. 2009;101(4):316–24.
14.
ChanEVernonSAhnCGreisingerA. Do men know that they have had a prostate-specific antigen test? Accuracy of self-reports of testing at 2 sites. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(8):1336–8.
15.
RossLBerkowitzZEkwuemeD. Use of the prostate-specific antigen test among U.S. men: findings from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(3):636–44.
16.
O’ConnorABennettCStaceyD. Do patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(4):554–74.
17.
O’ConnorAMStaceyDEntwistleV. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;2.
18.
VolkRJHawleySTKneuperS. Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review. Am J Prevent Med. 2007;33(5):428–34.
19.
MullenPDAllenJDGlanzK. Measures used in studies of informed decision making about cancer screening: a systematic review. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32(3):188–201.
20.
BowenDAllenJHartAVuT. Theoretical foundations for interventions designed to promote informed decision-making for cancer screening. Ann Behav Med. 2006;32:201–10.
21.
ReynaV. A theory of medical decision making in health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–64.
22.
JanzNBeckerM. The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984;11(1):1–47.
23.
FishbeinM. A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):516–23.
24.
WeinsteinND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1988;7(4):355–386.
25.
JanisILMannL. Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press; 1977.
26.
MeissnerHSmithRRimerB. Promoting cancer screening: learning from experience. Cancer. 2004;101(5S):1107–17.
27.
BaronRRimerBCoatesR, Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prevent Med. 2008;35(1 suppl):S56–66.
28.
O’ConnorAJacobsenMStaceyD. Stage of Decision Making Scale. Ottawa: Ottawa Health Research Institute; 2008.
29.
RadosevichDPartinMNugentS. Measuring patient knowledge of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;54:143–52.
30.
BunnHO’ConnorA. Validation of client decision-making instruments in the context of psychiatry. Can J Nurs Res. 1996;28(3):13–27.
31.
O’ConnorAJacobsenMStaceyD. An evidence-based approach to managing women’s decisional conflict. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2002;31(5):570–81.
32.
VolkRJCantorSBCassARSpannSJWellerSCKrahnMD. Preferences of husbands and wives for outcomes of prostate cancer screening and treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:339–48.
33.
PignoneMHarrisRKinsingerL. Video-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Behav Med. 2000;133:761–9.
34.
DiefenbachMWeinsteinNO’ReillyJ. Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard susceptibility. Health Educ Res. 1993;8(2):181–92.
35.
WoloshinSSchwartzLByramSFischhoffBWelchH. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:298–307.
36.
DegnerLFSloanJAVenkateshP. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.
37.
AllenJDSorensenGStoddardAMPetersonKEColditzG. The relationship between social network characteristics and breast cancer screening practices among employed women. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21(3):193–200.
38.
AllenJDStoddardAMSorensenG. Do social network characteristics predict mammography screening practices?Health Educ Behav. 2007July9; Epub ahead of print.
39.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. In: Services USDoHaH, ed. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005.
40.
RauscherGJohnsonTPChoYIWalkJA. Accuracy of self-reported cancer screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(4):748–57.
41.
BermanEBoundJGrilichesZ. Changes in the demand for skilled labor within U.S. manufacturing: evidence from the annual survey of manufacturers. Q J Econ. 1994;109(2):367–97.
42.
MagnaniE. Technological diffusion, the diffusion of skill and the growth of outsourcing in US manufacturing. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. 2006;15(7):617–47.
43.
WoloshinSSchwartzLMoncurMGabrielSTostesonA. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(5):382–90.
44.
NelsonWHanPFagerlinAStefanekMUbelP. Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:609–18.
45.
GattellariMWardJE. Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomised controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2003;10:27–39.
46.
GattellariMWardJE. A community-based randomised controlled trial of three different educational resources for men about prostate cancer screening. Patient Educ Counsel. 2005;57(2):168–182.
47.
FroschDLKaplanRMFelittiV. Evaluation of two methods of facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:391–8.
48.
FroschDLKaplanRMFelittiVJ. A randomized controlled trial comparing internet and video to facilitate patient education for men considering the prostate specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(10):781–7.
49.
TaylorKLDavisJLTurnerRJohnsonLSchwartzMDKernerJFLeakC. Educating African American men about the prostate cancer-screening dilemma: a randomized intervention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(11):2179–88.
CurranVSolbergSMathewsM. Prostate cancer screening attitudes and continuing education needs of primary care physicians. J Cancer Educ. 2005;20(3):162–6.
