Cargando…
Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening
OBJECTIVE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge ab...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4281538/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005691 |
_version_ | 1782351011377053696 |
---|---|
author | Thomas, Rae Glasziou, Paul Rychetnik, Lucie Mackenzie, Geraldine Gardiner, Robert Doust, Jenny |
author_facet | Thomas, Rae Glasziou, Paul Rychetnik, Lucie Mackenzie, Geraldine Gardiner, Robert Doust, Jenny |
author_sort | Thomas, Rae |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening. DESIGN: Random allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment. SETTING: Participants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six men aged 50–70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer. INTERVENTION: The control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=−0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4281538 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42815382015-01-12 Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening Thomas, Rae Glasziou, Paul Rychetnik, Lucie Mackenzie, Geraldine Gardiner, Robert Doust, Jenny BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening. DESIGN: Random allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment. SETTING: Participants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six men aged 50–70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer. INTERVENTION: The control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=−0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831). BMJ Publishing Group 2014-12-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4281538/ /pubmed/25539779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005691 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 4.0) 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/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Public Health Thomas, Rae Glasziou, Paul Rychetnik, Lucie Mackenzie, Geraldine Gardiner, Robert Doust, Jenny Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening |
title | Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening |
title_full | Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening |
title_fullStr | Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening |
title_full_unstemmed | Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening |
title_short | Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening |
title_sort | deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in psa screening |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4281538/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005691 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thomasrae deliberativedemocracyandcancerscreeningconsentarandomisedcontroltrialoftheeffectofacommunityjuryonmensknowledgeaboutandintentionstoparticipateinpsascreening AT glaszioupaul deliberativedemocracyandcancerscreeningconsentarandomisedcontroltrialoftheeffectofacommunityjuryonmensknowledgeaboutandintentionstoparticipateinpsascreening AT rychetniklucie deliberativedemocracyandcancerscreeningconsentarandomisedcontroltrialoftheeffectofacommunityjuryonmensknowledgeaboutandintentionstoparticipateinpsascreening AT mackenziegeraldine deliberativedemocracyandcancerscreeningconsentarandomisedcontroltrialoftheeffectofacommunityjuryonmensknowledgeaboutandintentionstoparticipateinpsascreening AT gardinerrobert deliberativedemocracyandcancerscreeningconsentarandomisedcontroltrialoftheeffectofacommunityjuryonmensknowledgeaboutandintentionstoparticipateinpsascreening AT doustjenny deliberativedemocracyandcancerscreeningconsentarandomisedcontroltrialoftheeffectofacommunityjuryonmensknowledgeaboutandintentionstoparticipateinpsascreening |