Objective
To determine if the quality of prescreening discussions has changed following release
of the United States Preventive Services Task Force statement against prostate cancer
screening.
Methods
This cross-sectional study used the 2012 and 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System surveys. Respondents were categorized based on the year in which they responded
to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. Quality of prescreening
discussion was operationalized as having discussed only advantages, only disadvantages,
both advantages and disadvantages, or neither. Race/ethnicity, education level, income,
insurance status, and having a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level actually drawn
after prescreening counseling served as confounders in our multivariate analysis.
Results
Among 217,053 men in the analytic sample, 37% were told about only advantages of PSA
screening compared to 30% of men who were advised about both advantages and disadvantages.
Men who were told about neither advantages nor disadvantages were more likely to be
Hispanic, not graduate high school, have low income, and not have insurance. Controlling
for covariates, men in 2014 were significantly more likely to have undergone PSA testing
without having discussed either advantages or disadvantages than men in 2012.
Conclusion
Comprehensive prescreening discussions about advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing
are critical to informed decision making about prostate cancer screening. Disparities
not only exist with regard to the quality of prescreening discussions that patients
receive from their providers prior to PSA testing across categories of race/ethnicity,
education, income, and insurance status, but these disparities became more substantial
between 2012 and 2014. Further investigation is warranted to elicit more specific
reasons behind these variations.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Four minutes for a patient, twenty seconds for a relative—an observational study at a university hospital.BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10: 94
- The time needed for clinical documentation versus direct patient care. A work-sampling analysis of physicians' activities.Methods Inf Med. 2009; 48: 84-91
- The relationship between time spent communicating and communication outcomes on a hospital medicine service.J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27: 185-189
- Prostate Cancer Prevention and Early Detection.(A.C. Society, Editor)2016 (Atlanta, GA)
- Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline.J Urol. 2013; 190: 419-426
- Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion.J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 3020-3025
- NCCN guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016.J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14: 509-519
- Clinical practice. Screening for prostate cancer.N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 2013-2019
- Prostate cancer screening decisions: results from the National Survey of Medical Decisions (DECISIONS study).Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169: 1611-1618
- Are physicians discussing prostate cancer screening with their patients and why or why not? A pilot study.J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22: 901-907
- Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 120-134
- Prostate cancer screening: highlights from the 29th European Association of Urology Congress Stockholm, Sweden, April 11-15, 2014.Rev Urol. 2014; 16: 90-91
- Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy.Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 876-892
- Patient opinions on prostate cancer screening are swayed by the United States Preventative Services Task Force recommendations.Urology. 2014; 84: 295-299
- Stata Statistical Software: Release 13.2013 (StataCorp LP: College Station, TX)
- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Overview: BRFSS 2012.(Available at:) (Accessed April)
- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Overview: BRFSS 2014.(Available at:) (Accessed April)
- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2012 Codebook Report Land-Line & Cell-Phone Data.(Available at:) (Accessed April)
- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2014 Codebook Report Land-Line & Cell-Phone Data.(Available at:) (Accessed April)
- A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 9
- Epidemiology and pathophysiology of prostate cancer in African-American men.J Urol. 2007; 177: 444-449
- Evidence supports a faster growth rate and/or earlier transformation to clinically significant prostate cancer in black than in white American men, and influences racial progression and mortality disparity.J Urol. 2010; 183: 1792-1796
- Surveillance, E., and End Results (SEER) Program.http://www.seer.cancer.gov/(Research Data (1973-2012) DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released August)Date: 2014
- Does patient educational level affect office visits to family physicians?.J Natl Med Assoc. 2002; 94: 157-165
- Patient sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of satisfaction with medical care: a meta-analysis.Soc Sci Med. 1990; 30: 811-818
- The relationship between patient income and physician discussion of health risk behaviors.JAMA. 1997; 278: 1412-1417
- The social gradient in doctor-patient communication.Int J Equity Health. 2012; 11: 12
- Men's knowledge and beliefs about prostate cancer: education, race, and screening status.Ethn Dis. 2009; 19: 199-203
- Prostate cancer screening in a low-literacy population: does informed decision making occur?.Cancer Control. 2005; 12: 116-117
- A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004-2011; 2013: 49
- Test-retest reliability of colorectal testing questions on the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).Prev Med. 2005; 41: 303-311
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 18, 2017
Accepted:
December 27,
2016
Received:
June 16,
2016
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Re: Turini et al.: The State of Prescreening Discussions About Prostate-specific Antigen Testing Following Implementation of the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force Statement (Urology 2017;104:122-130)UrologyVol. 114
- PreviewWe read the article with great interest. The authors analyzed the occurrence of prescreening discussions (also called “shared decision making”) that patients received from their providers before prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and found a declining rate between 2012 and 2014. As outlined in this article, the majority of screening is done by primary care providers and not by urologists. From the perspective of primary care, even after more than 25 years since the introduction of routine PSA screening for prostate cancer (PCa), there is still no clarity about the usefulness and desirability of this test.
- Full-Text
- Preview
- Reply by the AuthorUrologyVol. 114
- PreviewAs presented in this Letter to the Editor, we strongly agree with the authors that the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Statement against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer has led to significant confusion within the medical community, especially among our primary care provider (PCP) colleagues. The grade D recommendation served not only to raise question among PCPs about the practice of using PSA-based screening but also took 1 step further by actually recommending against that laboratory work.
- Full-Text
- Preview
