The Journal of family practice · 2000
The effect of an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid on the use of prostate cancer screening tests.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Schapira M M, VanRuiswyk J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer screening with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) continues to increase. Our goal was to test the effect of a prostate cancer screening decision-aid on patients' knowledge, beliefs, and use of prostate cancer screening tests.
METHODS: Our study was a randomized controlled trial of a prostate cancer screening decision-aid consisting of an illustrated pamphlet as opposed to a comparison intervention. We included 257 men aged 50 to 80 years who were receiving primary care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The decision-aid provided quantitative outcomes of prostate cancer screening with DRE and PSA. We subsequently evaluated prostate cancer screening knowledge, beliefs, and test use.
RESULTS: The illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in improving knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests: 95% of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of false-negative test results compared with 85% of the comparison group (P <.01). Ninety-one percent of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of a false-positive screening test result compared with 65% of the comparison group (P <.01). However, there was no difference in the use of prostate cancer screening between the experimental (82%) and comparison (84%) groups, (P >.05).
CONCLUSIONS: When used in a primary care setting, an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in increasing knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests but did not change the use of these tests.
METHODS: Our study was a randomized controlled trial of a prostate cancer screening decision-aid consisting of an illustrated pamphlet as opposed to a comparison intervention. We included 257 men aged 50 to 80 years who were receiving primary care at a Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The decision-aid provided quantitative outcomes of prostate cancer screening with DRE and PSA. We subsequently evaluated prostate cancer screening knowledge, beliefs, and test use.
RESULTS: The illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in improving knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests: 95% of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of false-negative test results compared with 85% of the comparison group (P <.01). Ninety-one percent of the experimental group were aware of the possibility of a false-positive screening test result compared with 65% of the comparison group (P <.01). However, there was no difference in the use of prostate cancer screening between the experimental (82%) and comparison (84%) groups, (P >.05).
CONCLUSIONS: When used in a primary care setting, an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid was effective in increasing knowledge of prostate cancer screening tests but did not change the use of these tests.