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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Rae, Glasziou, Paul, Rychetnik, Lucie, Mackenzie, Geraldine, Gardiner, Robert, Doust, Jenny
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