Limited Evidence of Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening in Audio-Recorded Primary Care Visits Among Black Men and their Healthcare Providers.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s10903-024-01606-5
Elizabeth R Stevens, Jerry Thomas, Natalia Martinez-Lopez, Angela Fagerlin, Shannon Ciprut, Michele Shedlin, Heather T Gold, Huilin Li, J Kelly Davis, Ada Campagna, Sandeep Bhat, Rueben Warren, Peter Ubel, Joseph E Ravenell, Danil V Makarov
{"title":"Limited Evidence of Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening in Audio-Recorded Primary Care Visits Among Black Men and their Healthcare Providers.","authors":"Elizabeth R Stevens, Jerry Thomas, Natalia Martinez-Lopez, Angela Fagerlin, Shannon Ciprut, Michele Shedlin, Heather T Gold, Huilin Li, J Kelly Davis, Ada Campagna, Sandeep Bhat, Rueben Warren, Peter Ubel, Joseph E Ravenell, Danil V Makarov","doi":"10.1007/s10903-024-01606-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening is a preference-sensitive decision for which experts recommend a shared decision making (SDM) approach. This study aimed to examine PSA screening SDM in primary care. Methods included qualitative analysis of audio-recorded patient-provider interactions supplemented by quantitative description. Participants included 5 clinic providers and 13 patients who were: (1) 40-69 years old, (2) Black, (3) male, and (4) attending clinic for routine primary care. Main measures were SDM element themes and \"observing patient involvement in decision making\" (OPTION) scoring. Some discussions addressed advantages, disadvantages, and/or scientific uncertainty of screening, however, few patients received all SDM elements. Nearly all providers recommended screening, however, only 3 patients were directly asked about screening preferences. Few patients were asked about prostate cancer knowledge (2), urological symptoms (3), or family history (6). Most providers discussed disadvantages (80%) and advantages (80%) of PSA screening. Average OPTION score was 25/100 (range 0-67) per provider. Our study found limited SDM during PSA screening consultations. The counseling that did take place utilized components of SDM but inconsistently and incompletely. We must improve SDM for PSA screening for diverse patient populations to promote health equity. This study highlights the need to improve SDM for PSA screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":15958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health","volume":" ","pages":"866-877"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-024-01606-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening is a preference-sensitive decision for which experts recommend a shared decision making (SDM) approach. This study aimed to examine PSA screening SDM in primary care. Methods included qualitative analysis of audio-recorded patient-provider interactions supplemented by quantitative description. Participants included 5 clinic providers and 13 patients who were: (1) 40-69 years old, (2) Black, (3) male, and (4) attending clinic for routine primary care. Main measures were SDM element themes and "observing patient involvement in decision making" (OPTION) scoring. Some discussions addressed advantages, disadvantages, and/or scientific uncertainty of screening, however, few patients received all SDM elements. Nearly all providers recommended screening, however, only 3 patients were directly asked about screening preferences. Few patients were asked about prostate cancer knowledge (2), urological symptoms (3), or family history (6). Most providers discussed disadvantages (80%) and advantages (80%) of PSA screening. Average OPTION score was 25/100 (range 0-67) per provider. Our study found limited SDM during PSA screening consultations. The counseling that did take place utilized components of SDM but inconsistently and incompletely. We must improve SDM for PSA screening for diverse patient populations to promote health equity. This study highlights the need to improve SDM for PSA screening.

在黑人男性及其医疗保健提供者的初级保健访谈录音中,前列腺癌筛查共同决策的证据有限。
基于前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)的前列腺癌筛查是一项对偏好敏感的决策,专家建议采用共同决策(SDM)方法。本研究旨在探讨初级保健中的 PSA 筛查 SDM。研究方法包括对患者与医疗服务提供者的互动录音进行定性分析,并辅以定量描述。参与者包括 5 名诊所提供者和 13 名患者,他们分别是(1) 40-69 岁;(2) 黑人;(3) 男性;(4) 就诊于常规初级保健诊所。主要测量指标为 SDM 要素主题和 "观察患者参与决策"(OPTION)评分。一些讨论涉及筛查的优势、劣势和/或科学不确定性,但很少有患者接受了所有 SDM 要素。几乎所有的医疗服务提供者都建议进行筛查,但只有 3 名患者被直接问及筛查偏好。很少有患者被问及前列腺癌知识(2 例)、泌尿系统症状(3 例)或家族史(6 例)。大多数医疗服务提供者讨论了 PSA 筛查的缺点(80%)和优点(80%)。每位医疗服务提供者的平均 OPTION 得分为 25/100(范围为 0-67)。我们的研究发现,PSA 筛查咨询过程中的 SDM 非常有限。所进行的咨询使用了 SDM 的组成部分,但并不一致,也不完整。我们必须改善针对不同患者群体的 PSA 筛查 SDM,以促进健康公平。本研究强调了改善 PSA 筛查 SDM 的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
104
期刊介绍: Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original research pertaining to immigrant health from contributors in many diverse fields including public health, epidemiology, medicine and nursing, anthropology, sociology, population research, immigration law, and ethics. The journal also publishes review articles, short communications, letters to the editor, and notes from the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信