A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings

BACKGROUND: Decision support interventions (DESIs) provide a mechanism to translate comparative effectiveness research results into clinical care so that patients are able to make informed decisions. Patient decision support interventions for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to promote informed decision making and reduce PSA testing in efficacy trials, but their impact in real world settings is not clear. OBJECTIVE: We performed an effectiveness trial of PSA decision support interventions in primary care. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of three distribution strategies was compared to a control. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 2,550 men eligible for PSA testing (76.6 % of the eligible population) and 2001 survey respondents (60.1 % survey response rate). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention groups were: 1) mailed the DESI in DVD format, 2) offered a shared medical appointment (SMA) to view the DESI with other men and discuss, and 3) both options. MAIN MEASURES: We measured PSA testing identified via electronic medical record at 12 months and DESI use by self-report 4 months after the intervention mailing. KEY RESULTS: We found no differences in PSA testing across the three distribution strategies over a year-long follow-up period: 21 %, 24 %, 22 % in the DESI, SMA, and combined group respectively, compared to 21 % in the control group (p = 0.51). Self-reported DESI use was low across all strategies at 4 months: 16 % in the mailed DESI group, 6 % in the SMA group, and 15 % in the combined group (p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Mailing PSA decision support interventions or inviting men to shared medical appointments unrelated to a primary care office visit do not appear to promote informed decision making, or change PSA testing behavior

Research in cardiovascular care: a position statement of the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals of the European Society of Cardiology

To deliver optimal patient care, evidence-based care is advocated and research is needed to support health care staff of all disciplines in deciding which options to use in their daily practice. Due to the increasing complexity of cardiac care across the life span of patients combined with the increasing opportunities and challenges in multidisciplinary research, the Science Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals (CCNAP) recognised the need for a position statement to guide researchers, policymakers and funding bodies to contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge that is needed to further improve cardiovascular care. In this paper, knowledge gaps in current research related to cardiovascular patient care are identified, upcoming challenges are explored and recommendations for future research are given

Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men’s health services affects decisions. METHODS: We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men’s health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician. RESULTS: Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men’s perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men’s knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men’s self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference −34%; 95% CI −50% to −18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference −22%; 95% CI −38 to −7%) with no difference in effect by frame. CONCLUSIONS: SDM interventions can increase men’s knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT0063018