Urologia internationalis · 2013
Assessment of screenees' knowledge on prostate cancer: results of a questionnaire using the fact sheet.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Okihara Koji, Mikami Kazuya, Kamoi Kazumi, Kitamura Koji, Kawauchi Akihiro, Miki Tsuneharu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the screenees' knowledge on prostate cancer and attitude to PSA screening using the Fact Sheet from one district, Kyoto, Japan.
METHODS: A PSA screening program is offered to people aged more than 54 years since 1995. The Fact Sheet consists of several chapters, as follows: (1) possibility of diagnosing prostate cancer in terms of the PSA threshold, and future morbid risk, (2) benefit and harm of biopsy, (3) necessary examinations after the diagnosis of prostate cancer and risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) comorbidity of main treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy. Each screenee was asked how well the Fact Sheet was understood.
RESULTS: Of the 330 men, 288 read the Fact Sheet for the first time. Of those, 59 and 75% did not know that biopsy indication was determined based on the PSA value and the concept of overdiagnosis, respectively. Furthermore, 68% did not know that active surveillance is established as one option for prostate cancer treatment. However, the screenee's knowledge in the 42 men who read the Fact Sheet previously improved substantially.
CONCLUSIONS: The degree of comprehension of examinees is currently insufficient, and repeated enlightenment is required.
METHODS: A PSA screening program is offered to people aged more than 54 years since 1995. The Fact Sheet consists of several chapters, as follows: (1) possibility of diagnosing prostate cancer in terms of the PSA threshold, and future morbid risk, (2) benefit and harm of biopsy, (3) necessary examinations after the diagnosis of prostate cancer and risk for overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) comorbidity of main treatments such as surgery and radiation therapy. Each screenee was asked how well the Fact Sheet was understood.
RESULTS: Of the 330 men, 288 read the Fact Sheet for the first time. Of those, 59 and 75% did not know that biopsy indication was determined based on the PSA value and the concept of overdiagnosis, respectively. Furthermore, 68% did not know that active surveillance is established as one option for prostate cancer treatment. However, the screenee's knowledge in the 42 men who read the Fact Sheet previously improved substantially.
CONCLUSIONS: The degree of comprehension of examinees is currently insufficient, and repeated enlightenment is required.