A frequently used patient and physician-directed educational intervention does nothing to improve primary care of prostate conditions.
Urology 2001;
58:875-81. [PMID:
11744449 DOI:
10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01438-8]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To measure the impact of an educational intervention directed at both patients and their primary care physicians about prostate-related conditions.
METHODS
We used a randomized, control design for 50 physicians in 33 rural primary care practices from New England and Arkansas and a probability sample of 2402 of their male patients. For the physicians, we mailed two newsletters, conducted two face-to-face research staff visits, and provided printed educational manuals about the management of prostate conditions. For the patients, mailed educational pamphlets were targeted to the baseline symptom levels. After 18 months, 87% of patients and 92% of physicians completed a final survey. The patient survey measured health status, urinary symptoms and bother, treatments received, and prostate-related knowledge. The final physician survey asked them about their management of common prostate conditions.
RESULTS
Before randomization, most men (59%) said they knew little or nothing about prostate problems that affect urination, and 63% also reported "little" or "no" knowledge about prostate-specific antigen testing. Eighteen months later, we observed no differences between the intervention and control patients in the measures of health status, urinary symptoms and bother, treatments received, and prostate-related knowledge. The intervention, physicians' knowledge, and self-reported practices for managing common prostate conditions were no better than the control physicians'.
CONCLUSIONS
This commonly used education strategy had no measurable impact on prostate-related care.
Collapse