Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Prostate cancer screening and informed decision-making: provider and patient perspectives

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 14, pages 155–161 (2011)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The objective was to determine the extent of informed decision making for prostate cancer screening in a defined population. A state-wide population based survey of men aged 50 and above (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2004, Washington state) and a simple random sample of primary care physicians, were conducted in the same geographic area. We examined prostate cancer screening rates among the men (defined as either PSA or digital rectal examination within the past year) and prostate cancer screening practices among the physicians. Screening rates were 56% at ages 50–64, 68% at ages 65–79 and 64% among men age 80 and older. Adjusted analyses indicated that age, income, marital status, possessing health insurance and a personal health care provider, and talking with a provider about prostate cancer screening tests were all positively associated with screening status. In the physician survey, most physicians recommend screening to their average-risk male patients. Three-fourths (74%) of physicians discussed benefits and risks of PSA testing with their patients; but few used educational tools. Only 35% discussed the side effects of prostate cancer treatment with their patients. The rates of screening reported by men were relatively high, given that current recommendations promote informed decision making rather than universal screening. The majority of physicians recommend prostate cancer screening to their patients, with few decision-making tools used. All relevant information may not be provided in the discussion. These results point to the need for increasing informed decision making about prostate cancer screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ . Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 225–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ . American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 11–25; quiz 49–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin K, Lipsitz R, Miller T, Janakiraman S . Benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: an evidence update for the US preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 192–199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Summaries for patients. Screening for prostate cancer: a recommendation from the US preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: I48.

  5. Lim LS, Sherin K . Screening for prostate cancer in US men ACPM position statement on preventive practice. Am J Prev Med 2008; 34: 164–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. American Urological Association (AUA). Oncology (Williston Park) 2000; 14: 267–272, 77–8, 80 passim.

  7. Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, Coates RC, Lee NC, Mullen P et al. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Am J Prev Med 2004; 26: 67–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bowen DJ, Allen JD, Vu T, Johnson RE, Fryer-Edwards K, Hart Jr A . Theoretical foundations for interventions designed to promote informed decision making for cancer screening. Ann Behav Med 2006; 32: 202–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mullen PD, Allen JD, Glanz K, Fernandez ME, Bowen DJ, Pruitt SL et al. Measures used in studies of informed decision making about cancer screening: a systematic review. Ann Behav Med 2006; 32: 188–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Woods VD, Montgomery SB, Herring RP, Gardner RW, Stokols D . Social ecological predictors of prostate-specific antigen blood test and digital rectal examination in black American men. J Natl Med Assoc 2006; 98: 492–504.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wray RJ, McClure S, Vijaykumar S, Smith C, Ivy A, Jupka K et al. Changing the conversation about prostate cancer among African Americans: results of formative research. Ethn Health 2009; 14: 27–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Halbert CH, Wrenn G, Weathers B, Delmoor E, Ten Have T, Coyne JC . Sociocultural determinants of men's reactions to prostate cancer diagnosis. Psychooncology 2010; 19: 553–560.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Konety BR, Raut H, Smith BJ, Sharp VJ, Williams RD . Effect of uniform consensus recommendations for PCa screening in older population: differential effects and perceptions of healthcare providers and patients. Urology 2009; 73: 603–608; discussion 8–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. 2010; [updated 6 November 2010; cited 06 November 2010]; Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/.

  15. Zhang J, Yu KF . What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 280: 1690–1691.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunn AS, Shridharani KV, Lou W, Bernstein J, Horowitz CR . Physician-patient discussions of controversial cancer screening tests. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20: 130–134.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Guerra CE, Jacobs SE, Holmes JH, Shea JA . 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoffman KE, Nguyen PL, Ng AK, D’Amico AV . Prostate cancer screening in men 75 years old or older: an assessment of self-reported health status and life expectancy. J Urol 2010; 183: 1798–1802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a contract with the Washington State Department of Health (N13916), and by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute through the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network, a network within the CDC's Prevention Research Centers Program (Grant 1-U48-DP-000050).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

    D J Bowen

  2. Health Promotion Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    P A Hannon & J R Harris

  3. Department of Health Services, Seattle, WA, USA

    D P Martin

Authors
  1. D J Bowen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P A Hannon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J R Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D P Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D J Bowen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bowen, D., Hannon, P., Harris, J. et al. Prostate cancer screening and informed decision-making: provider and patient perspectives. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 14, 155–161 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.55

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.55

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links