Helping Men Decide About Scheduling a Prostate Cancer Screening Exam

Matthew Liberatore (), Robert Nydick (), Constantine Daskalakis (), Elisabeth Kunkel (), James Cocroft () and Ronald Myers ()
Additional contact information
Matthew Liberatore: Department of Management and Operations, Villanova School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085
Robert Nydick: Department of Management and Operations, Villanova School of Business, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085
Constantine Daskalakis: Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Division of Biostatistics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Elisabeth Kunkel: Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
James Cocroft: Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Population Science, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Ronald Myers: Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Population Science, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Interfaces, 2009, vol. 39, issue 3, 209-217

Abstract: This paper reports on the application of decision counseling based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assist men in deciding whether or not to schedule a prostate cancer screening exam. The study is based on data that we collected from 129 men enrolled in the intervention arm of two randomized, controlled trials. First, we administered a baseline survey to gather data on participant sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions about prostate cancer and screening. Subsequently, a health educator conducted a session with each man to review an informational booklet on prostate cancer screening. Then, the health educator used an AHP-based decision process that identified the most important factors (both pro or con) that might influence prostate cancer screening preferences, clarified preferences related to scheduling a prostate screening exam, and elicited a scheduling decision. We performed univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify variables associated with the decision. Of the 129 men enrolled, 85 men (66 percent) decided to schedule a prostate cancer screening exam. Multivariable analyses showed that preference strengths and favorable perceptions of prostate cancer screening predicted the decision to screen.

Keywords: decision making; decision-support techniques; analytic-hierarchy process; mass screening; randomized controlled trial (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1080.0395 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:orinte:v:39:y:2009:i:3:p:209-217

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Interfaces from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().