Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening: a systematic review

Assessing the effectiveness of decision aids for decision making in prostate cancer testing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a leading disease affecting men worldwide. Conflicting evidence within the literature provides little guidance to men contemplating whether or not to be screened for prostate cancer. This systematic review aimed to determine whether decision aids about early detection of prostate cancer improve patient knowledge and decision making about whether to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment databases up until March 2014 were searched. All included randomised controlled trials were assessed for methodological quality. Clinical selection and assessment heterogeneity among studies prevented the pooling of data for meta-analyses. Descriptive analyses of all included studies and comparison were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Significant heterogeneity was present for the design and implementation of decision aids including comparative interventions and outcomes. Eight studies were of a low methodological quality, with the remaining five of medium quality. Improvements in patient knowledge following use of a decision aid were demonstrated by 11 of the 13 included studies. Seven of 10 studies demonstrated a reduction in decisional conflict/distress. Three of four studies demonstrated no difference between a decision aid and information only in reducing decisional uncertainty. Three of five studies demonstrated an increase in decisional satisfaction with use of a decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids increase patient knowledge and confidence in decision making about prostate cancer testing. Further research into effective methods of implementation is needed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prostate cancer: measuring PSA

Population screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for detection of prostate cancer is a topic associated with ongoing dissent and confusion within the oncology and wider medical community. The PSA blood test has been used in various stages of prostate cancer management, including screening and the assessment of future risk of prostate cancer development, detection of recurrent disease after local therapy and in the management of advanced disease. However, PSA-based decision-making in prostate cancer has significant shortcomings. This review will summarise the evidence and current recommendations for the use of PSA in detection and management of prostate cancer.

Video-based educational tool improves patient comprehension of common prostate health terminology

BACKGROUND

Health care providers often counsel prostate cancer patients about treatment options with medical terminology. However, studies have demonstrated a severe lack of comprehension of these terms, particularly in underserved populations. It was hypothesized that a video-based educational tool would significantly improve the understanding of key terms related to prostate health in a predominantly lower literacy population.

METHODS

A software application was developed by various experts, including urologists and human-computer interaction specialists, to serve as a video-based educational tool emphasizing narrated animations to promote understanding of terms related to urinary, bowel, and sexual function. This application was viewed by patients recruited from 2 low-income safety net clinics, where a previously developed survey was administered to assess pre- and postintervention levels of comprehension.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with a mean literacy level of 7th to 8th grade completed the study. Patients achieved statistically significant improvements in comprehension for the majority of the terms after the video intervention, with notable improvements including the terms incontinence (from 14% to 50%), bowels (from 14% to 46%), and impotence (from 58% to 84%). Patients demonstrated significant gains in their understanding of the function of the prostate (from 11% to 30%) and in their ability to locate the prostate on anatomic drawings (from 50% to 82%).

CONCLUSIONS

This video-based educational tool is an effective method for overcoming the severe lack of comprehension of prostate health terminology among patients. The improvements achieved have the potential to enhance patient participation in shared and informed decision making and to support combined visual-audio multimedia as a promising tool for prostate cancer education.

Decision-making Processes among Prostate Cancer Survivors with Rising PSA Levels: Results from a Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer survivors with a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level have few treatment options, experience a heightened state of uncertainty about their disease trajectory that might include the possibility of cancer metastasis and death, and often experience elevated levels of distress as they have to deal with a disease they thought they had conquered. Guided by self-regulation theory, the present study examined the cognitive and affective processes involved in shared decision making between physicians and patients who experience a rising PSA after definitive treatment for prostate cancer.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with 34 prostate cancer survivors who had been diagnosed with a rising PSA (i.e., biochemical failure) within the past 12 months. Survivors were asked about their experiences and affective responses after being diagnosed with a rising PSA and while weighing potential treatment options. In addition, patients were asked about their decision-making process for the initial prostate cancer treatment.

RESULTS

Compared with the initial diagnosis, survivors with a rising PSA reported increased negative affect following their diagnosis, concern about the treatability of their disease, increased planning and health behavior change, heightened levels of worry preceding doctor appointments (especially prior to the discussion of PSA testing results), and a strong reliance on physicians' treatment recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer survivors' decision-making processes for the treatment of a rising PSA are markedly different from those of the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer. Because patients experience heightened distress and rely more heavily on their physicians' recommendations with a rising PSA, interactions with the health care provider provide an excellent opportunity to address and assist patients with managing the uncertainty and distress inherent with rising PSA levels.

Men's preferences and trade-offs for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains controversial. In deciding about screening, men must weigh the benefits and harms: little is known about benefit: harm trade-offs men are willing to accept. The objective of this study was to assess men's preferences for PSA screening, and the trade-offs between benefits and harms men are willing to accept when deciding about screening.

METHODS

Preferences of 662 men aged 40-69 were assessed using a discrete choice experiment. PSA screening was described by six attributes: prostate cancer deaths, prostate cancer diagnoses, unnecessary biopsies from false-positive PSA tests, impotence, urinary incontinence/bowel problems and cost. A mixed logit model was used to examine the influence of attributes on men's preferences for PSA testing; benefit: harm trade-offs were also calculated.

RESULTS

Men's preferences were significantly influenced by test characteristics, particularly potential mortality benefit, unnecessary biopsies and likelihood of urinary incontinence or bowel problems; preferences were also influenced by age, prior PSA testing experience and perceived risk of prostate cancer. Men were willing to accept between 65 and 233 of 10 000 extra men with unnecessary biopsies, and between 31 and 72 of 10 000 extra men with incontinence/bowel problems to avoid one prostate cancer death.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in valuations of attributes and trade-offs acceptable to men of different ages suggest a one size fits all approach to PSA testing, regardless of age, may not reflect men's preferences. Our results can be used by policymakers to ensure screening programmes are in line with men's preferences and by clinicians and patients to facilitate informed discussions of the most relevant benefits and downsides of PSA screening for an individual man.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions: results from a national survey

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are encouraged to support patients in achieving shared decision making (SDM) for cancer screening.

PURPOSE

To describe decision making processes and outcomes for cancer screening discussions.

METHODS

A 2011 national Internet survey of adults aged ≥50 years who made cancer screening decisions (breast, BrCa; colorectal, CRC; prostate, PCa) within the previous 2 years was conducted. Participants were asked about their perceived cancer risk; how informed they felt about cancer tests; whether their healthcare provider addressed pros/cons of testing, presented the option of no testing, and elicited their input; whether they were tested; and their confidence in the screening decision. Data were analyzed in 2013-2014 with descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,134 participants (477 men, 657 women) aged ≥50 years made cancer screening decisions, and 1,098 (354, BrCa; 598, CRC; 146, PCa) decisions were discussed with a healthcare provider. Most discussions (51%-67%) addressed pros of screening some or a lot, but few (7%-14%) similarly addressed cons. For all cancer screening decisions, providers usually (63%-71%) explained that testing was optional, but less often asked women (43%-57%) than men (70%-71%) whether they wanted testing. Only 27%-38% of participants reported SDM, 69%-93% underwent screening, and 55%-76% would definitely make the same decision again. Perceived high/average cancer risk and feeling highly informed were associated with confidence in the screening decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussions often failed to provide balanced information and meet SDM criteria. Supporting SDM could potentially improve the quality of cancer screening decisions.

A conceptual model of the multiple stages of communication necessary to support patient-centered care

Patient-centered care requires that both healthcare providers and patients have access to comparative effectiveness research (CER), which provides direct comparisons of the risks and benefits of available clinical options. However, insufficient attention has been paid to developing the comprehensive communication systems necessary to ensure that CER reaches patients and healthcare providers. In this review, we propose a model of the multiple stages of CER communication necessary for patient-centered care and review the existing research and gaps in knowledge relevant to each stage. These stages include: promotion of the underlying concepts and value of CER; translation of CER results; dissemination of CER results; and utilization of the results of CER in shared decision-making between patients and providers. A comprehensive approach to CER communication is necessary to ensure that the growing interest in and availability of CER is able to support a more patient-centered model of healthcare.

Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial

BACKGROUND

Despite policy interest, an ethical imperative, and evidence of the benefits of patient decision support tools, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) in day-to-day clinical practice remains slow and is inhibited by barriers that include culture and attitudes; resources and time pressures. Patient decision support tools often require high levels of health and computer literacy. Option Grids are one-page evidence-based summaries of the available condition-specific treatment options, listing patients' frequently asked questions. They are designed to be sufficiently brief and accessible enough to support a better dialogue between patients and clinicians during routine consultations. This paper describes a study to assess whether an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA of the knee) facilitates SDM, and explores the use of Option Grids by patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy.

METHODS/DESIGN

This will be a stepped wedge exploratory trial involving 72 patients with OA of the knee referred from primary medical care to a specialist musculoskeletal service in Oldham. Six physiotherapists will sequentially join the trial and consult with six patients using usual care procedures. After a period of brief training in using the Option Grid, the same six physiotherapists will consult with six further patients using an Option Grid in the consultation. The primary outcome will be efficacy of the Option Grid in facilitating SDM as measured by observational scores using the OPTION scale. Comparisons will be made between patients who have received the Option Grid and those who received usual care. A Decision Quality Measure (DQM) will assess quality of decision making. The health literacy of patients will be measured using the REALM-R instrument. Consultations will be observed and audio-recorded. Interviews will be conducted with the physiotherapists, patients and any interpreters present to explore their views of using the Option Grid.

DISCUSSION

Option Grids offer a potential solution to the barriers to implementing traditional decision aids into routine clinical practice. The study will assess whether Option Grids can facilitate SDM in day-to-day clinical practice and explore their use with patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94871417.

Decision making and prostate cancer screening

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

Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men.

OBJECTIVE

In July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians.

DESIGN

Two-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations).

MAIN MEASURES

Panelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified.

KEY RESULTS

Highly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training.

CONCLUSIONS

Conference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

Decision making in prostate cancer screening using decision aids vs usual care: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

The conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer (PCa) screening and the mixed messages communicated to the public about screening effectiveness make it critical to assist men in making informed decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of 2 decision aids in helping men make informed PCa screening decisions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A racially diverse group of male outpatients aged 45 to 70 years from 3 sites were interviewed by telephone at baseline, 1 month, and 13 months, from 2007 through 2011. We conducted intention-to-treat univariate analyses and multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses, adjusting for baseline outcome measures.

INTERVENTION

Random assignment to print-based decision aid (n = 628), web-based interactive decision aid (n = 625), or usual care (UC) (n = 626).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prostate cancer knowledge, decisional conflict, decisional satisfaction, and whether participants underwent PCa screening.

RESULTS

Of 4794 eligible men approached, 1893 were randomized. At each follow-up assessment, univariate and multivariable analyses indicated that both decision aids resulted in significantly improved PCa knowledge and reduced decisional conflict compared with UC (all P <.001). At 1 month, the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) in knowledge for the web group vs UC was 0.74, and in the print group vs UC, 0.73. Decisional conflict was significantly lower for web vs UC (d = 0.33) and print vs UC (d = 0.36). At 13 months, these differences were smaller but remained significant. At 1 month, high satisfaction was reported by significantly more print (60.4%) than web participants (52.2%; P = .009) and significantly more web (P = .001) and print (P = .03) than UC participants (45.5%). At 13 months, differences in the proportion reporting high satisfaction among print (55.7%) compared with UC (49.8%; P = .06) and web participants (50.4%; P = .10) were not significant. Screening rates at 13 months did not differ significantly among groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Both decision aids improved participants’ informed decision making about PCa screening up to 13 months later but did not affect actual screening rates. Dissemination of these decision aids may be a valuable public health tool.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00196807.

Pairing physician education with patient activation to improve shared decisions in prostate cancer screening: a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician's final recommendations.

METHODS

Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients' reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients' reported shared decision making and the physician's recommendation for prostate cancer screening.

RESULTS

Patients' ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations.

Presenting treatment options to men with clinically localized prostate cancer: the acceptability of active surveillance/monitoring

Presenting treatment options to men with localized prostate cancer is difficult because of the lack of definitive evidence and the range of treatment options available. Active surveillance and monitoring programs are now a recognized treatment option for men with low-risk localized prostate cancer, but many patients are not fully aware of the details of such programs, and most still opt for immediate radical (surgery or radiotherapy) treatment. The provision of high-quality information with decision aids has been shown to increase the acceptability of active surveillance/monitoring programs. This chapter outlines techniques for providing high-quality information about active surveillance/monitoring, based on the findings of a randomized controlled trial of treatments for localized prostate cancer. The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) trial has randomized over 1500 men between active monitoring, radical surgery, and radical radiotherapy by ensuring that information was tailored to men's existing knowledge and views. Care was taken with the content, order, and enthusiasm of the presentation of treatments by recruitment staff, and clinicians and other health professionals were supported to feel comfortable with being open about the uncertainties in the evidence and helped to rephrase terminology likely to be misinterpreted by patients. These techniques of information provision should be added to the use of decision aids to enable patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer in routine practice to reach well-informed and reasoned decisions about their treatment, including full consideration of active surveillance and monitoring programs.

Improving the communication of benefits and harms of treatment strategies: decision AIDS for localized prostate cancer treatment decisions

Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer are preference sensitive. The optimal treatment strategy is unknown, and active treatment is not always necessary. Choosing among the various options involves tradeoffs between cancer control and complications that affect quality of life. A shared decision-making process, particularly facilitated by a decision aid, can help a patient make an informed decision that is concordant with his values and preferences. Studies have shown that informed patients are more willing to forego aggressive treatment, but much work is needed to develop and evaluate high-quality decision aids that accurately portray active surveillance. The research agenda for decision aids includes evaluating content elements and format, timing and setting for delivery, the quality of the decision-making process, and the effects of decision support on treatment selection (which will occur repeatedly for men opting for active surveillance) and quality of life.

Fostering informed decisions: a randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of a decision aid among men registered to undergo mass screening for prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer is controversial and informed decision making is recommended. Within two prostate cancer screening programs, we evaluated the impact of a print-based decision aid (DA) on decision-making outcomes.

METHODS

Men (N=543) were 54.9 (SD=8.1) years old and 61% were African-American. The 2(booklet type: DA vs. usual care (UC))× 2(delivery mode: Home vs. Clinic) randomized controlled trial assessed decisional and screening outcomes at baseline, 2-months, and 13-months.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat linear regression analyses using generalized estimating equations revealed that DA participants reported improved knowledge relative to UC (B=.41, p<.05). For decisional conflict, per-protocol analyses revealed a group by time interaction (B=-.69, p<.05), indicating that DA participants were less likely to report decisional conflict at 2-months compared to UC participants (OR=.49, 95% CI: .26-.91, p<.05).

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized trial to evaluate a DA in the context of free mass screening, a challenging setting in which to make an informed decision. The DA was highly utilized by participants, improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results are valuable in understanding ways to improve the decisions of men who seek screening and can be easily implemented within many settings.

Informed decision making about prostate cancer testing in predominantly immigrant black men: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Decision support interventions have been developed to help men clarify their values and make informed decisions about prostate cancer testing, but they seldom target high-risk black and immigrant men.

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the efficacy of a decision support intervention focused on prostate cancer testing in a sample of predominantly immigrant black men.

METHODS

Black men (N = 490) were randomized to tailored telephone education about prostate cancer testing or a control condition.

RESULTS

Post-intervention, the intervention group had significantly greater knowledge, lower decision conflict, and greater likelihood of talking with their physician about prostate cancer testing than the control group. There were no significant intervention effects on prostate specific antigen testing, congruence between testing intention and behavior, or anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

A tailored telephone decision support intervention can promote informed decision making about prostate cancer testing in black and predominantly immigrant men without increasing testing or anxiety.

Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret

The number of prostate cancer survivors is rapidly growing in the Western world. As a result of better oncologic outcomes, more patients are living longer with the adverse effects of treatment, which can be both functional and psychological. Clinicians, in an era of shared decision-making, must not only cure the cancer, but also ensure that, after treatment, their patients experience the best quality of life and minimal post-treatment decisional regret. To participate in the decision-making process, men and their involved partners and family need to fully understand the relative benefits and harms of prostate cancer treatments.Patient preference studies indicate that men with prostate cancer are not well informed. Decision-making aids are a positive treatment adjunct both to convey information and to allow patients to explore their own beliefs and values during the decision-making process. The evidence suggests that decision-making aids better prepare patients for involvement in treatment decisions, but further studies are required to investigate the relationship between the use of decision-making aids and post-treatment decisional regret in prostate cancer.

Educating men about prostate cancer in the workplace

Prostate cancer is a common cancer affecting men worldwide. Few men access health services with respect to early detection. Workplace health education initiatives can promote behavior change in men. A total of 12 in-depth interviews with men were conducted in this study to examine how a workplace-based educational campaign on prostate cancer influences the knowledge, awareness, and beliefs of male workers on screening for prostate cancer. Analyses of interview transcripts identified that men had a poor overall knowledge about prostate cancer, its screening, and treatment. Participants were receptive to the introduction of workplace-based health education initiatives to promote men's health issues but recommended an integrated health approach that incorporated information delivered by medical professionals, cancer survivors, supplemented with existing patient education materials. Further research is required to formally evaluate the impact of workplace-based education strategies on men's health.

Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions.

METHODS

We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician.

RESULTS

Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

#NCT00630188.

Can a decision aid enable informed decisions in neonatal nursery recruitment for a fragile X newborn screening study?

PURPOSE

To determine whether a brochure based on principles of informed decision making improved attention to study materials or altered decisions made by parents invited to participate in a fragile X syndrome newborn screening study.

METHODS

A total of 1,323 families were invited to participate in a newborn screening study to identify infants with fragile X syndrome as well as premutation carrier infants. Of these families, 716 received the original project brochure and 607 were given a new decision aid brochure.

RESULTS

Families were more likely to look at the new decision aid and mothers were more likely to read it completely, but the proportion of mothers who read the entire decision aid was only 14%. Families were more likely to rate the decision aid as very helpful. Consistent with informed decision making theory and research, participants receiving the decision aid brochure were less likely to agree to participate.

CONCLUSION

The decision aid increased attention to and perceived helpfulness of educational information about the study, but most families did not read it completely. The study suggests that even well-designed study materials are not fully reviewed in the context of in-hospital postpartum study recruitment and may need to be accompanied by a research recruiter to obtain informed consent.

Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion

PURPOSE

An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the screening of men for prostate cancer.

CLINICAL CONTEXT

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the United States. The rationale for screening men for prostate cancer is the potential to reduce the risk of death through early detection.

RECENT DATA

Evidence from a 2011 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality systematic review primarily informs this PCO on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening. An update search was conducted to March 16, 2012, for additional evidence related to the topic.

RESULTS

In one randomized trial, PSA testing in men who would not otherwise have been screened resulted in reduced death rates from prostate cancer, but it is uncertain whether the size of the effect was worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment. Although there are limitations to the existing data, there is evidence to suggest that men with longer life expectancy may benefit from PSA testing. Adverse events associated with prostate biopsy are low for the majority of men; however, several population-based studies have shown increasing rates of infectious complications after prostate biopsy, which is a concern.

Interventions to improve decision making and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the management of prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by prostate cancer (PCa) and are at risk for not receiving informed decision making (IDM). We conducted a systematic literature review on interventions to improve: (1) IDM about PCa in screening-eligible minority men, and (2) quality of life (QOL) in minority PCa survivors.

DATA SOURCES

MeSH headings for PCa, ethnic minorities, and interventions were searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. SUBJECT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We identified U.S.-based, English-language articles (1985 - 2010) on interventions to improve PCa IDM and QOL that included 50% or more minority patients or analyses stratified by race/ethnicity.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Articles (n = 19) were evaluated and scored for quality using a Downs and Black (DB) system. Interventions were organized by those enhancing 1) IDM about PCa screening and 2) improving QOL and symptom among PCa survivors. Outcomes were reported by intervention type (educational seminar, printed material, telephone-based, video and web-based).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies evaluated interventions for enhancing IDM about PCa screening and five evaluated programs to improve outcomes for PCa survivors. Knowledge scores were statistically significantly increased in 12 of 13 screening studies that measured knowledge, with ranges of effect varying across intervention types: educational programs (13% - 48% increase), print (11% - 18%), videotape/DVD (16%), and web-based (7% - 20%). In the final screening study, an intervention to improve decision-making about screening increased decisional self-efficacy by 9%. Five cognitive-behavioral interventions improved QOL among minority men being treated for localized PCa through enhancing problem solving and coping skills.

LIMITATIONS

Weak study designs, small sample sizes, selection biases, and variation in follow-up intervals across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational programs were the most effective intervention for improving knowledge among screening-eligible minority men. Cognitive behavioral strategies improved QOL for minority men treated for localized PCa.

Risk Communication and Prostate Cancer

The format in which risk is communicated influences how patients make health care decisions. The same statistical information may be summarized differently according to relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, or odds ratio. A total of 76 men participated in focus groups exploring their understanding of information about prostate cancer treatments when framed across these different formats. Using thematic analysis, it was identified that the study participant best understood information when outcomes were framed as an absolute risk reduction and in a positive frame. Patient education materials about prostate cancer treatment options should be reported as an increase in probability of survivorship rather than decrease in risk of mortality and incorporate impact of treatment on patient-centered quality-of-life outcomes.

Computerised decision aids: a systematic review of their effectiveness in facilitating high-quality decision-making in various health-related contexts

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review existing empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of computerised decision aids (CDAs) in enabling high-quality decision-making in preference-sensitive health-related contexts.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases (1990-October 2010). Only randomised controlled trials with at least one decision quality or decision process variable outcome were included.

RESULTS

Of 1467 identified articles, 28 studies met all inclusion criteria, evaluating 26 unique CDAs. CDAs performed better than standard consultations/education regarding improved knowledge and lower decisional conflict, and were found not to increase anxiety. CDAs facilitated greater satisfaction with the decision-making process than standard education. The effects on risk perceptions, value congruence with the chosen option, preferred roles in decision-making and decisional self-efficacy need further evaluation. A paucity of CDAs adhered to decision theories.

CONCLUSIONS

CDAs showed similar effects as non-computerised DAs on various outcomes. Further research into the potentially superior effects of CDAs on feeling informed, values-clarity, and decisional conflict is required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The more remarkable effects on knowledge and risk perceptions were reported when unique features of interactive computerised media were used. The potential benefit of tailored information, values-clarification, and integration of CDAs into shared decision-making consultations remains unresolved.

Design and evaluation of a decision aid for inviting parents to participate in a fragile X newborn screening pilot study

The major objectives of this project were to develop and evaluate a brochure to help parents make an informed decision about participation in a fragile X newborn screening study. We used an iterative development process that drew on principles of Informed Decision Making (IDM), stakeholder input, design expertise, and expert evaluation. A simulation study with 118 women examined response to the brochure. An independent review rated the brochure high on informational content, guidance, and values. Mothers took an average of 6.5 min to read it and scored an average of 91.1 % correct on a knowledge test. Most women rated the brochure as high quality and trustworthy. When asked to make a hypothetical decision about study participation, 61.9 % would agree to screening. Structural equation modeling showed that agreement to screening and decisional confidence were associated with perceived quality and trust in the brochure. Minority and white mothers did not differ in perceptions of quality or trust. We demonstrate the application of IDM in developing a study brochure. The brochure was highly rated by experts and consumers, met high standards for IDM, and achieved stated goals in a simulation study. The IDM provides a model for consent in research disclosing complicated genetic information of uncertain value.

Is a prostate cancer screening anxiety measure invariant across two different samples of age-appropriate men?

Background

In order to explore the influence of anxiety on decision–making processes, valid anxiety measures are needed. We evaluated a prostate cancer screening (PCS) anxiety scale that measures anxiety related to the prostate–specific antigen (PSA) test, the digital rectal examination (DRE), and the decision to undergo PCS (PCS-D) using two samples in different settings.

Methods

We assessed four psychometric properties of the scale using baseline data from a randomized, controlled decision aid trial (n = 301, private clinic; n = 149, public).

Results

The 3-factor measure had adequate internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the 3–factor model did not have adequate fit. When subscales were considered separately, only the 6–item PCS-D anxiety measure had adequate fit and was invariant across clinics.

Conclusions

Our results support the use of a 6–item PCS-D anxiety measure with age-appropriate men in public and private settings. The development of unique anxiety items relating to the PSA test and DRE is still needed.

Medical center characteristics associated with PSA screening in elderly veterans with limited life expectancy

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines recommend against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in elderly men with limited life expectancy, screening is common.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify medical center characteristics associated with screening in this population.

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a prospective study of 622,262 screen-eligible men aged 70+ seen at 104 VA medical centers in 2003.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcome was the percentage of men at each center who received PSA screening in 2003, based on VA data and Medicare claims. Men were stratified into life expectancy groups ranging from favorable (age 70-79 with Charlson score = 0) to limited (age 85+ with Charlson score ≥1 or age 70+ with Charlson score ≥4). Medical center characteristics were obtained from the 1999-2000 VA Survey of Primary Care Practices and publicly available VA data sources.

KEY RESULTS

Among 123,223 (20%) men with limited life expectancy, 45% received PSA screening in 2003. Across 104 VAs, the PSA screening rate among men with limited life expectancy ranged from 25-79% (median 43%). Higher screening was associated with the following center characteristics: no academic affiliation (50% vs. 43%, adjusted RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25), a ratio of midlevel providers to physicians ≥3:4 (55% vs. 45%, adjusted RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.32) and location in the South (49% vs. 39% in the West, adjusted RR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.12-1.40). Use of incentives and high scores on performance measures were not independently associated with screening. Within centers, the percentages of men screened with limited and favorable life expectancies were highly correlated (r = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial practice variation exists for PSA screening in older men with limited life expectancy across VAs. The high center-specific correlation of screening among men with limited and favorable life expectancies indicates that PSA screening is poorly targeted according to life expectancy.

Information on pros and cons of prostate-specific antigen testing to men prior to blood draw: a study from the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) of Sweden

Objective. Recent guidelines on serum testing of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in asymptomatic men emphasize the importance of an informed decision. This study assessed the proportion of men who had received written or oral information on the possible consequences of testing of serum levels of PSA before blood draw. Material and methods. From the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) in Sweden, 600 men per year were randomly selected out of all men with T1c prostate cancer who were diagnosed in the work-up of a PSA test as a part of health examination in 2006–2008. In a mailed questionnaire these men were asked whether and how they had been informed about the pros and cons of a PSA test prior to blood draw. Results. In total, 1621 out of 1800 men (90.1%) responded to the questionnaire; 39/1563 (2.5%) reported that they had received only written information before testing, 179/1563 (11.5%) had received both oral and written information, 763/1563 (48.8%) had received oral information only, 423/1563 (27.1%) had not received any information and 159/1563 (10.2%) were not aware of that a PSA test had been performed. Conclusions. The proportion of men who had received written information on the pros and cons of a PSA test before blood draw in the setting of a health examination was low. Improved routines for giving information to the patient before a PSA test are warranted.

Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing: the effect of a mailed patient flyer prior to an annual exam

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Professional societies recommend that the decision to screen for prostate cancer involves a shared discussion between patient and provider. Many men are tested without this discussion. Prostate cancer screening decision aids increase patient knowledge and participation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions under ideal circumstances but are often resource intensive and elaborate. There is a need for evaluation of interventions that are low cost, low literacy, and practical for widespread distribution. The authors evaluated the effect of a mailed low-literacy informational patient flyer about the PSA test on measures of shared decision making.

METHODS

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing the mailed flyer versus usual care was conducted among 303 men aged 50 to 74 years who were scheduled for annual health maintenance exams in 2 general internal medicine clinics (University of Colorado and University of Colorado Hospital). Charts were reviewed after the visits for documentation of PSA screening discussions and PSA testing rates. Follow-up patient surveys assessed include perceived participation in PSA screening decisions, knowledge of the PSA test, and flyer acceptability.

RESULTS

Rates of chart-documented PSA discussions were low with no difference between the flyer and control groups (17.7% and 13.6%, respectively; P = .28). Rates of PSA testing were also similar in both groups (62.5% vs 58.5%; P = .48). Rates of patient-reported PSA discussions were higher than the documented rates but also without differences between the groups (71.8% vs 62.3%; P = .22). The intervention had no effect in the PSA knowledge scores (3.5/5 vs 3.3/5, P = .60). Patients found the flyer to be highly acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

A mailed low-literacy informational flyer was well received by patients but had no effect on rates of PSA discussions, PSA testing, or patient knowledge of prostate cancer screening.

Promoting decision aid use in primary care using a staff member for delivery

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of in-clinic decision aid distribution using a care assistant.

METHODS

We identified potentially eligible patients scheduled for upcoming appointments in our General Internal Medicine Clinic (n=1229). Patients were deemed eligible for two decision aids: prostate cancer screening and/or weight loss surgery. Patients were approached to view the decision aid in-clinic. Our primary measures were the proportion of decision aids distributed to eligible patients, and the proportion of decision aids viewed.

RESULTS

Among 913 patients who attended their scheduled appointments, 58% (n=525) were approached and eligibility was assessed by the staff member. Among the 471 who remained eligible, 57% (n=268) viewed at least a portion of the target decision aid. The mean viewing time for patients who watched less than the complete decision aid was 13 min.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinic viewing of decision aids may be a feasible and effective distribution method in primary care.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In clinic distribution requires an electronic health information system to identify potentially eligible patients, and a staff member dedicated to DA distribution. Brief decision aids (less than 10 min) are needed so patients can complete their use prior to the visit to facilitate patient-physician decision making.

Validity of a low literacy version of the Decisional Conflict Scale

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the 4-factor low literacy Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS-LL) with men eligible for prostate cancer screening (PCS).

METHODS

We used baseline (T0; n=149) and post-intervention (T2; n=89) data from a randomized, controlled trial of a PCS decision aid to assess internal consistency reliability and construct, discriminant, and factor validity.

RESULTS

There was evidence of excellent internal consistency reliability (α's≥.80) and fair construct validity (most r's≥.40) for the DCS-LL except for the Supported subscale. The DCS-LL was able to discriminate between men who had decided and those who had not. There was evidence for the original 4-factor model at T0 but exploratory analysis suggested a 3-factor solution at T0 and T2 with Informed and Value Clarity as one factor.

CONCLUSION

For men eligible for PCS, feeling informed and feeling clear about values may not reflect distinct cognitive processes. Feeling supported may not be a factor contributing to uncertainty.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Research should address whether current DCS subscales best represent the factors that contribute to uncertainty for PCS and for other screening decisions. Research should also explore the influence of health literacy on the factor structure of the DCS-LL.

Multi-media support for informed/shared decision-making before and after a cancer diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

To define and distinguish informed decision-making (IDM) from shared decision-making (SDM) and review the evidence for technology-based interventions designed to facilitate informed decisions about cancer screening and treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed research articles from Medline and other data sources accessible through pubmed.gov.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that multi-media decision aids (DAs) or support systems can improve quality of decision-making in terms of enhancing knowledge relevant to decision-making, reducing decisional conflict, and customizing education and coaching of patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses have a key role to play in designing, deploying, monitoring, and evaluating multi-media DAs in oncology practice settings. DAs are an adjunct to interpersonal education, providing information to patients in both the clinical setting and in more familiar settings without the time constraints of clinical encounters. Nurses can adopt such DAs and support systems and work with patients to ensure that information has been comprehended, that values have been considered, and that patients play an active role in the decision-making process as they desire.

Men's use of an Internet-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening

Most medical organizations recommend informed decision making before undergoing prostate cancer screening. The authors conducted a detailed evaluation of men's use of an interactive, Web-based prostate cancer screening decision aid. Participants (N = 531) were 57 years old (SD = 6.8), 37% were African American, and 92% had Internet access. Men completed 2 telephone interviews, pre- and 1-month post-Web site availability. Half of the sample (n = 256) accessed the Web site. Multivariate analysis revealed that users were more likely than nonusers to be White (OR = 2.37, CI 1.6-3.6), previously screened (OR = 2.13, CI 1.07-4.26), have Internet access (OR = 3.66, CI 1.15-11.58), and to report daily Internet use (OR = 2.58, CI 1.47-4.55). Agreement between self-reported and actual Web site use was moderate (κ = .67). Tracking software revealed a mean of 1.3 (SD = 0.5) log-ons and a median of 38 min per log-on. Of participants, 84% used the values clarification tool, and more than 50% viewed each video testimonial. Baseline screening preference was associated with values clarification tool responses and Web site feedback. This study revealed that, beyond the digital divide, Web site use depended on more than Internet access. Further, electronic tracking of Web site use demonstrated overestimation of self-reported use, high use of interactive features, and effect of baseline screening preference on men's response to the Web site.

A community-based intervention to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening among Hispanic American men changed knowledge and role preferences: a cluster RCT

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the short-term effects of a community-based intervention for Hispanic men to encourage informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA).

METHODS

All senior social and housing centers in El Paso, TX were randomized to intervention, a group-based Spanish language educational program facilitated by promotores (12 centers; 161 men) [I's], or to control, promotores-facilitated diabetes video and discussion (13 centers; 160 men) [C's].

RESULTS

Participants had low levels of schooling and baseline knowledge; 44% reported previous PSA testing. At post-test, the I's made large knowledge gains, increased their understanding that experts disagree about testing, shifted toward more active decision making roles, were more likely to believe that it is important to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of screening and to anticipate potential screening outcomes in making a decision, and were less likely to consider the screening decision easy. The I's did not change in their screening intention or the belief that choosing not to be screened could be a responsible choice.

CONCLUSIONS

A community-based intervention to support IDM for prostate cancer screening can increase knowledge and may promote more active involvement in decision making about prostate cancer screening. Such an approach can increase knowledge and may promote more active involvement in decision making about prostate cancer screening.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is feasible to develop and implement a community-based intervention program to promote IDM for prostate cancer screening.

Translating medical evidence to promote informed health care decisions

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of a community-based intervention on decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening using multiple measures of informed decision making (IDM).

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Nonequivalent control group time series design collecting primary data in late 2004 and 2005.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed a multimodal intervention designed to convey the medical uncertainty about the benefits of PSA screening and early treatment and the limited predictive ability of both the PSA test and pathological specimens collected from prostate biopsy. We examined (1) patients' recognition that there is a decision to be made about PSA screening, (2) prostate cancer knowledge levels, (3) their preferred and actual levels of participation in decision making about screening at three points in time, and (4) screening decision.

DATA COLLECTION

Baseline data collection occurred in community-based organizations. These organizations served as recruiting sources and as sites for the intervention. We collected follow-up data by mail with telephone reminders.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our intervention was associated with greater recognition of the PSA test as a decision to be made, levels of knowledge, both preferred and actual levels of involvement in decision making, but did not have an impact on the screening decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Community-based interventions can influence key measures of IDM about PSA screening.

Measuring informed decision making about prostate cancer screening in primary care

PURPOSE

To measure the extent of informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening in physician-patient encounters, describe the coding process, and assess the reliability of the IDM measure.

METHODS

Audiorecoded encounters of 146 older adult men and their primary care physicians were obtained in a randomized controlled trial of mediated decision support related to prostate cancer screening. Each encounter was dual coded for the presence or absence of 9 elements that reflect several important dimensions of IDM, such as information sharing, patient empowerment, and engaging patients in preference clarification. An IDM-9 score (range = 0-9) was determined for each encounter by summing the number of elements that were coded as present. Estimates of coding reliability and internal consistency were calculated.

RESULTS

Male patients tended to be white (59%), married (70%), and between the ages of 50 and 59 (70%). Physicians tended to be white (90%), male (74%), and have more than 10 years of practice experience (74%). IDM-9 scores ranged from 0 to 7.5 (mean [SD], 2.7 [2.1]). Reliability (0.90) and internal consistency (0.81) of the IDM-9 were both high. The IDM dimension observed most frequently was information sharing (74%), whereas the dimension least frequently observed was engagement in preference clarification (3.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In physician-patient encounters, the level of IDM concerning prostate cancer screening was low. The use of a dual-coding approach with audiorecorded encounters produced a measure of IDM that was reliable and internally consistent.

Difference in willingness-to-pay for prostate cancer screening between ill-informed and well-informed men: a contingent valuation survey

OBJECTIVES

To use a contingent valuation method to compare the willingness of well-informed and ill-informed men to pay for PSA screening. Prostate cancer screening by analysis of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels has recently been confirmed to reduce prostate cancer death. However, PSA screening is associated with considerable risks, and men should be well informed about the risks before deciding to undergo the test.

METHODS

A total of 1800 men aged 50-69 years old participated in an Internet-based, computer-assisted questionnaire survey. The subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group 1 (n = 900) was provided with information about the procedure, detection rate, and mortality-reducing effects of PSA screening. Additional information was given to group 2 (n = 900), including the possibility of false-positive or false-negative results, the risks of close examination, and the possibility of overdiagnoses. The willingness to pay (WTP) was assessed using a double-bound dichotomous choice method.

RESULTS

The average WTP was significantly greater in group 1 than in group 2 ($31.1 vs $25.1, P < .01). Weibull regression analysis showed that patients with a history of receiving PSA screening or with greater incomes had a significantly greater WTP.

CONCLUSIONS

Although providing information on the risks of PSA screening significantly decreased men's WTP for such tests, the well-informed group was still willing to pay $25.1. These findings suggest that men can balance the potential disadvantages of PSA screening against its effectiveness in saving lives.

What we have learned from randomized trials of prostate cancer screening

The introduction of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer screening in the late 1980s led to an epidemic of prostate cancer, particularly in developed countries. However, the first valid reports from randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of screening were not published until 2009. Men in the screening group in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer were 20% less likely than those in the control group to die from prostate cancer. The absolute difference was only 0.7/1000, implying that over 1400 men needed to be screened to prevent one prostate cancer death. Screening was also associated with a 70% increased risk for being diagnosed with prostate cancer. The American Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial found no survival benefit for screening. Results were not conclusive because a substantial proportion of study subjects had previously undergone PSA testing, over half of the control group had PSA testing, follow-up was relatively short, and fewer than 100 subjects died from prostate cancer. Balancing the potential survival benefit from screening is the risk of overdiagnosis-finding cancers that would not otherwise cause clinical problems-and the risk of treatment complications, including urinary, sexual and bowel dysfunction. Prostate cancer screening efforts would benefit from improved biomarkers, which more readily identify clinically important cancers. Cancer control efforts might also need to include chemoprevention, though currently available agents are controversial. In the meantime, patients need to be supported in achieving informed decisions on whether to be screened for prostate cancer.