Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Nov;39(2):327-34.
doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.10.007. Epub 2014 Oct 23.

Informed decision making among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer survivors: a pilot randomized trial

Stacy N Davis  1 , Steven K Sutton  2 , Susan T Vadaparampil  3 , Cathy D Meade  4 , Brian M Rivers  5 , Mitul V Patel  6 , Javier F Torres-Roca  7 , Randy V Heysek  8 , Philippe Spiess  9 , Julio Pow-Sang  10 , Paul B Jacobsen  11 , Clement K Gwede  12
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Informed decision making among first-degree relatives of prostate cancer survivors: a pilot randomized trial

Stacy N Davis et al. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014 Nov.

Abstract

Background: First degree relatives (FDRs) of men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) are at increased risk for developing the disease, due in part to multiple concurrent risk factors. There is a lack of innovative targeted decision aids to help FDRs make an informed decision about whether or not to undergo PCa screening.

Purpose: This randomized pilot trial evaluated the efficacy of a targeted PCa screening decision aid in unaffected FDRs of PCa survivors.

Methods: Seventy-eight Black and White FDRs were randomized to one of two decision aid groups; 39 to a FDR-targeted decision aid and 39 to a general decision aid. The targeted decision aid group received a general PCa decision aid booklet plus a newly developed decision aid DVD targeted specifically for FDRs. PCa screening decision outcomes included knowledge, decisional conflict, distress, and satisfaction with screening decision. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 4 weeks after baseline.

Results: There were no differences by intervention group for knowledge, decisional conflict, distress, or satisfaction with screening decision (p>0.05). However, men in both groups had significant increases in knowledge and decreases in decisional conflict (p<0.001). These changes were most pronounced (p<0.05) for younger men compared to older men.

Conclusion: Results suggest that general and targeted information can play an important role in increasing knowledge and decreasing decisional conflict among FDRs. Additional research is needed to identify subgroups of men who benefit the most and better understand the outcomes of a screening decision aid among diverse samples of FDRs.

Keywords: Cancer education; Cancer prevention and control; First degree relatives; Informed decision making; Prostate cancer; Screening decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1
Consort Flow Diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. Altanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2014.
    1. Bruner DW, et al. Relative risk of prostate cancer for men with affected relatives: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2003;107(5):797–803. - PubMed
    1. Bock CH, et al. Decreasing age at prostate cancer diagnosis over successive generations in prostate cancer families. Prostate. 2005;64(1):60–66. - PubMed
    1. McDowell ME, et al. A review of prostate-specific antigen screening prevalence and risk perceptions for first-degree relatives of men with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2009;18(6):545–555. - PubMed
    1. Schroder FH, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360(13):1320–1328. - PubMed

Publication types