4.6 Review

Trials of decision aids for prostate cancer screening - A systematic review

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 428-434

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.030

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R25 CA 577] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL 10612] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [U58/CCU 620376] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patient decision aids are used to promote informed decision making. This review examines the methods and findings of studies that have evaluated the impact of prostate cancer screening decision aids on patient outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Registry, reference lists, and abstracts from professional meetings were searched through December 2006. Search terms included prostate cancer screening and decision making. Studies were included if a patient education intervention for prostate cancer screening had been evaluated against a control condition. Results: Eighteen eligible trials, involving 6221 participants, were identified. Sixteen studies enrolled primary care patients, while the remaining two studies were community-based. All the prostate cancer screening decision aids were in English, with varied reading levels. Consistent with previous reviews, the patient decision aids improved patient knowledge and made patients more confident about their decisions. The aids appeared to decrease interest in prostate-specific antigen testing and screening behavior among patients seeking routine care (relative risk [RR] =0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.81-0.97, p=0.008); the aids had no impact on the screening behavior of patients seeking screening services. Additionally, patients who received patient decision aids were more likely to prefer watchful waiting as a treatment option if they were found to have prostate cancer than were controls (RR=1.53, 95% CI=1.31-1.77, p<0.001). Conclusions: Prostate cancer screening decision aids enhance patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict, and promote greater involvement in decision making. The absence of outcome measures that reflect all elements of informed decision making continues to limit the field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据