Economics at your fingertips  

Evaluating two decision aids for Australian men supporting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial

Kristen Pickles, Luise Kazda, Alexandra Barratt, Kevin McGeechan, Jolyn Hersch and Kirsten McCaffery

PLOS ONE, 2020, vol. 15, issue 1, 1-15

Abstract: Background: Australian clinicians are advised to ‘offer evidence-based decisional support to men considering whether or not to have a PSA test’. This randomised trial compared the performance and acceptability of two new decision aids (DAs) to aid men in making informed choices about PSA screening. Methods: ~3000 Australian men 45–60 years with varying educational attainment were recruited via an online panel and randomised to view one of two online decision aids (one full length, one abbreviated) and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was informed choice about PSA screening. Findings: Significantly more men in the long DA group (38%) made an informed choice than men who received the shorter DA (33%) (95% CI 1.1% to 8.2%; p = 0.008). On knowledge, the long DA group scored, on average, 0.45 points higher than the short DA group (95% CI 0.14 to 0.76; p = 0.004) and 5% more of the participants achieved an adequate knowledge score (95% CI 1.9% to 8.8%; p = 0.002). Men allocated the long DA were less likely to intend to have a PSA test in the future (53%) than men in the short DA group (59%). Both DAs rated highly on acceptability. Conclusions: Both DAs were useful and acceptable to men regardless of education level and both supported informed decision making. The long version resulted in higher knowledge, and a higher proportion of men able to make an informed choice, but the differences were small. Long DAs may be useful for men whose informational needs are not satisfied by a short DA.

Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link) (text/html) ... 27304&type=printable (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:

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227304

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().

Page updated 2020-03-21
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227304