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
. 2015 Oct;49(5):762-8.
doi: 10.1007/s12160-015-9692-5.

Baseline Attitudes About Prostate Cancer Screening Moderate the Impact of Decision Aids on Screening Rates

Amy J Starosta  1 , George Luta, Catherine A Tomko, Marc D Schwartz, Kathryn L Taylor
Affiliations

Baseline Attitudes About Prostate Cancer Screening Moderate the Impact of Decision Aids on Screening Rates

Amy J Starosta et al. Ann Behav Med. 2015 Oct.

Abstract

Background: The impact of decision aids on prostate cancer screening outcomes has been inconsistent.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest and Ethical Standards: Authors Starosta, Luta, Tomko, Schwartz, and Taylor declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT Diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Moderation Effect of Baseline Cons Ratings by Study Arm on Screening Outcomes at 13-Months
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2014. [Accessed June 23, 2014]. Available at http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/....
    1. Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:30–51. - PubMed
    1. Justman S. Uninformed consent: mass screening for prostate cancer. Bioethics. 2012;26:143–148. - PubMed
    1. Moyer VA. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–134. - PubMed
    1. Diefenbach M, Turner G, Carpenter KM, et al. Cancer and patient-physician communication. J Health Commun. 2009;14(Suppl 1):57–65. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types