BACKGROUND: The impact of decision aids on prostate cancer screening outcomes has been inconsistent.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
PURPOSE: We assessed whether pre-existing attitudes moderated the impact of decision aids on screening.
METHODS: Men aged 45-70 (56.2 % Caucasian, 39.9 % African-American) were randomly assigned to a print decision aid (N = 630), a web decision aid (N = 631), or usual care (N = 632). Telephone interviews assessed pro/con screening attitudes and screening behaviors at baseline, 1-month and 13-months post-randomization.
RESULTS: Logistic regression analyses revealed significant arm by attitude interactions: Higher baseline cons scores predicted lower screening in the print (OR = 0.60 (95 % CI: 0.40, 0.92)) and web (OR = 0.61 (95 % CI: 0.40, 0.91)) arms but not in usual care (OR = 1.34 (95 % CI: 0.90, 2.00)).
CONCLUSIONS: The decision aids amplified the impact of men's baseline attitudes about limitations of screening: Compared to the usual care arm, men in both decision aid arms were less likely to be screened when they perceived more limitations of screening.
Starosta AJ, Luta G, Tomko CA, Schwartz MD, Taylor KL. Are you the author?
Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
Reference: Ann Behav Med. 2015 Feb 28. Epub ahead of print.