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
. 2019 Aug;102(8):1483-1489.
doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.03.009. Epub 2019 Apr 13.

Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening

Tessa Dierks  1 , Eveline A M Heijnsdijk  2 , Ida J Korfage  2 , Monique J Roobol  3 , Harry J de Koning  2
Affiliations

Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening

Tessa Dierks et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to assess to what extent men make informed choices in the context of prostate cancer screening and how written material contributes to that process.

Methods: We developed a leaflet describing prostate cancer screening, and a questionnaire consisting of knowledge, attitude, and intended screening uptake components to assess informed decision-making. The leaflet and questionnaire were pilot-tested among men of the target population, adapted accordingly, and sent to 761 members of an online research panel. We operationalized whether the leaflet was read as spending one minute on the leaflet page and by a self-reported answer of respondents.

Results: The response rate was 66% (501/761). The group who read the leaflet (n = 342) correctly answered a knowledge item significantly more often (10.9 versus 8.8; p < 0.001) than those who did not read the leaflet (n = 159), and made more informed choices (73% versus 56%; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in attitude and intended screening uptake between both groups.

Conclusion: Having read the leaflet could be one of the factors associated with increased levels of knowledge and informed decision-making.

Practical implications: The results of this study showed that increasing knowledge and supporting informed decision-making with written material are feasible in prostate cancer screening.

Keywords: Informed choice; Informed decision-making; Leaflet; Mass screening; Prostate cancer screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

COMPETING INTEREST

All authors declare that there are no competing interests.

References

    1. Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, Byrnes G, Antilla A, Ferlay J, et al. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. European journal of cancer. 2015;51(9):1164–87. - PubMed
    1. Bolla M, Van Poppel H. Management of prostate cancer: Springer; 2017.
    1. Dunn MW, editor Prostate Cancer Screening. Seminars in oncology nursing; 2017: Elsevier. - PubMed
    1. Sanghera S, Coast J, Martin RM, Donovan JL, Mohiuddin S. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review of decision-analytical models. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):84. - PMC - PubMed
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Bibbins-Domingo K, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, Doubeni CA, Ebell M, Epling JW Jr,Kemper AR, Krist AH, Kubik M, Landefeld CS, Mangione CM, Silverstein M, Simon MA, Siu AL, Tseng CW. Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018. May 8;319(18):1901–1913. - PubMed