World journal of urology · 2008
Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening?
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Stamatiou Konstantinos, Skolarikos Andreas, Heretis Ioannis, Papadimitriou Vaios, Alevizos Alevizos, Ilias Georgios, Karanasiou Vasilissa, Mariolis Anargiros, Sofras Frank
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: The effects of printed educational material on cancer screening in women (Pap test and mammography) are well documented and confirmed by several studies. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of similar printed educational material on prostate cancer screening by PSA and DRE.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thousand five hundred men aged between 50 and 86 years of age, who attended our institutions for various medical conditions except prostate-related conditions, were randomly assigned to two study groups. Men in the informed group, received an educational leaflet with simple, general information on prostate cancer screening methods given by their physician along with treatment and other regular recommendations, while men in the non-informed group, were only informed by their physician in the examination room during an interview.
RESULTS: After 24 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of DRE screening. The percentages of men who were actually screened by DRE were 4 and 5% in the informed and non-informed groups, respectively, while the difference in the percentages of PSA screening was of statistical significance, with 31% of men screened in the non-informed group as compared to 93% of men screened in the informational leaflet group.
CONCLUSIONS: A single, one-shift distribution of printed educational material on prostate cancer screening, changed their attitude regarding prostate cancer screening only in favour of PSA testing, while did not manage to change the DRE acceptance behavior. However, since the combination of the two tests is more sensitive for diagnosis than either one alone, there is a need of introducing intervention strategies, in the efforts of ameliorating the prostate cancer screening behavior.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thousand five hundred men aged between 50 and 86 years of age, who attended our institutions for various medical conditions except prostate-related conditions, were randomly assigned to two study groups. Men in the informed group, received an educational leaflet with simple, general information on prostate cancer screening methods given by their physician along with treatment and other regular recommendations, while men in the non-informed group, were only informed by their physician in the examination room during an interview.
RESULTS: After 24 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of DRE screening. The percentages of men who were actually screened by DRE were 4 and 5% in the informed and non-informed groups, respectively, while the difference in the percentages of PSA screening was of statistical significance, with 31% of men screened in the non-informed group as compared to 93% of men screened in the informational leaflet group.
CONCLUSIONS: A single, one-shift distribution of printed educational material on prostate cancer screening, changed their attitude regarding prostate cancer screening only in favour of PSA testing, while did not manage to change the DRE acceptance behavior. However, since the combination of the two tests is more sensitive for diagnosis than either one alone, there is a need of introducing intervention strategies, in the efforts of ameliorating the prostate cancer screening behavior.