Cargando…

A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE: Cancer screening policies and programmes should take account of public values and concerns. This study sought to determine the priorities, values and concerns of men who were ‘fully informed’ about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; and empirically examin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rychetnik, Lucie, Doust, Jenny, Thomas, Rae, Gardiner, Robert, MacKenzie, Geraldine, Glasziou, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785399
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004682
_version_ 1782479911932395520
author Rychetnik, Lucie
Doust, Jenny
Thomas, Rae
Gardiner, Robert
MacKenzie, Geraldine
Glasziou, Paul
author_facet Rychetnik, Lucie
Doust, Jenny
Thomas, Rae
Gardiner, Robert
MacKenzie, Geraldine
Glasziou, Paul
author_sort Rychetnik, Lucie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Cancer screening policies and programmes should take account of public values and concerns. This study sought to determine the priorities, values and concerns of men who were ‘fully informed’ about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; and empirically examine the value of a community jury in eliciting public values on PSA screening. SETTING: Community jury was convened on the Gold Coast, Queensland (Australia) to consider PSA screening benefits and harms, and whether government campaigns on PSA screening should be conducted. PARTICIPANTS: 27 men (volunteers) aged 50–70 with no personal history of prostate cancer and willing to attend jury 6–7 April 2013: 12 were randomly allocated to jury (11 attended). OUTCOME MEASURES: A qualitative analysis was conducted of the jury deliberations (audio-recorded and transcribed) to elicit the jury's views and recommendations. A survey determined the impact of the jury process on participants’ individual testing decisions compared with control group. RESULTS: The jury concluded governments should not invest in programmes focused on PSA screening directed at the public because the PSA test did not offer sufficient reassurance or benefit and could raise unnecessary alarm. It recommended an alternative programme to support general practitioners to provide patients with better quality and more consistent information about PSA screening. After the jury, participants were less likely to be tested in the future compared with the controls, but around half said they would still consider doing so. CONCLUSIONS: The jury's unanimous verdict about government programmes was notable in the light of their divergent views on whether or not they would be screened themselves in the future. Community juries provide valuable insights into the priorities and concerns of men weighing up the benefits and harms of PSA screening. It will be important to assess the degree to which the findings are generalisable to other settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4010814
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40108142014-05-07 A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis Rychetnik, Lucie Doust, Jenny Thomas, Rae Gardiner, Robert MacKenzie, Geraldine Glasziou, Paul BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: Cancer screening policies and programmes should take account of public values and concerns. This study sought to determine the priorities, values and concerns of men who were ‘fully informed’ about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; and empirically examine the value of a community jury in eliciting public values on PSA screening. SETTING: Community jury was convened on the Gold Coast, Queensland (Australia) to consider PSA screening benefits and harms, and whether government campaigns on PSA screening should be conducted. PARTICIPANTS: 27 men (volunteers) aged 50–70 with no personal history of prostate cancer and willing to attend jury 6–7 April 2013: 12 were randomly allocated to jury (11 attended). OUTCOME MEASURES: A qualitative analysis was conducted of the jury deliberations (audio-recorded and transcribed) to elicit the jury's views and recommendations. A survey determined the impact of the jury process on participants’ individual testing decisions compared with control group. RESULTS: The jury concluded governments should not invest in programmes focused on PSA screening directed at the public because the PSA test did not offer sufficient reassurance or benefit and could raise unnecessary alarm. It recommended an alternative programme to support general practitioners to provide patients with better quality and more consistent information about PSA screening. After the jury, participants were less likely to be tested in the future compared with the controls, but around half said they would still consider doing so. CONCLUSIONS: The jury's unanimous verdict about government programmes was notable in the light of their divergent views on whether or not they would be screened themselves in the future. Community juries provide valuable insights into the priorities and concerns of men weighing up the benefits and harms of PSA screening. It will be important to assess the degree to which the findings are generalisable to other settings. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4010814/ /pubmed/24785399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004682 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Public Health
Rychetnik, Lucie
Doust, Jenny
Thomas, Rae
Gardiner, Robert
MacKenzie, Geraldine
Glasziou, Paul
A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis
title A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis
title_full A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis
title_fullStr A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis
title_full_unstemmed A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis
title_short A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis
title_sort community jury on psa screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening—a qualitative analysis
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785399
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004682
work_keys_str_mv AT rychetniklucie acommunityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT doustjenny acommunityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT thomasrae acommunityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT gardinerrobert acommunityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT mackenziegeraldine acommunityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT glaszioupaul acommunityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT rychetniklucie communityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT doustjenny communityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT thomasrae communityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT gardinerrobert communityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT mackenziegeraldine communityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis
AT glaszioupaul communityjuryonpsascreeningwhatdowellinformedmenwantthegovernmenttodoaboutprostatecancerscreeningaqualitativeanalysis