4.4 Article

Lack of Follow-up of Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Results

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS
Volume 124, Issue 5, Pages 718-725

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/003335490912400514

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F000537/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. We obtained population estimates of the prevalence of lack of diagnostic follow-up after an abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) result and assessed the role of sociodemographic, access, and risk perception factors on follow-up of abnormal tests. Methods. We used data from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey cancer control supplement. For 3,310 men aged 40 or older with a PSA test, 463 men reported an abnormal PSA test. Outcomes were abnormal PSA and lack of diagnostic follow-up in the latter group. Covariates for logistic regression included sociodemographic variables (age, race/ethnicity, and education), access to care (health insurance and usual source), and risk of cancer (family history and perceived risk). Survey analysis procedures accounted for the complex survey design. Results. Abnormal PSA results were associated with age, family history, and perceived risk of cancer. Approximately 15% of men with abnormal PSA tests reported no follow-up. The estimated number was 423,549 (95% confidence interval [CI] 317,755, 529,343). No follow-up was more likely in Hispanic men (odds ratio [OR] = 2.21, 95% CI 1.04, 4.70) and men without insurance (OR = 6.56, 95% CI 2.02, 21.29), but less likely in men with a family history of prostate cancer or higher perceived risk of cancer. Conclusions. Substantial numbers of men had no follow-up of abnormal PSA tests. Primary care physicians should assess continuity of care following abnormal PSA results. Data about prostate cancer screening and follow-up are needed to support clinical and policy decisions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available