Racial Disparities in Prostate Cancer Screening: The Role of Shared Decision Making

被引:5
|
作者
Frego, Nicola [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Beatrici, Edoardo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Labban, Muhieddine [1 ,2 ]
Stone, Benjamin V. [1 ,2 ]
Filipas, Dejan K. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Koelker, Mara [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Lughezzani, Giovanni [3 ]
Buffi, Nicolo M. [5 ]
Osman, Nora Y. [5 ]
Lipsitz, Stuart R. [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Sammon, Jesse D. [6 ,7 ]
Kibel, Adam S. [1 ,2 ]
Trinh, Quoc-Dien [1 ,2 ]
Cole, Alexander P. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Urol Surg, 45 Francis St,ASB 2-3, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Harvard Med Sch, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Ctr Surg & Publ Hlth, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Humanitas Res Hosp IRSSC, Dept Urol, Milan, Italy
[4] Univ Med Ctr Hamburg Eppendorf, Dept Urol, Hamburg, Germany
[5] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Harvard Med Sch, Dept Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[6] Maine Med Ctr, Div Urol, Portland, ME USA
[7] Maine Med Ctr, Ctr Outcomes Res & Evaluat CORE, Portland, ME USA
关键词
PATIENT; CARE; PATTERNS; COMMUNICATION; DISCUSSIONS; ATTITUDES; MORTALITY; RATINGS; GENDER; RACE;
D O I
10.1016/j.amepre.2023.08.005
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Introduction: The 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations endorsed shared decision making for men aged 55-69 years, encouraging consideration of patient race/ethnicity for prostate-specific antigen screening. This study aimed to assess whether a proxy shared decision-making variable modified the impact of race/ethnicity on the likelihood of prostate-specific antigen screening.Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of men aged between 55 and 69 years, who responded to the prostate-specific antigen screening portions of the 2020 U.S.-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, was performed between September and December 2022. Complex sample multivariable logistic regression models with an interaction term combining race and estimated shared decision making were used to test whether shared decision making modified the impact of race/ethnicity on screening.Results: Of a weighted sample of 26.8 million men eligible for prostate-specific antigen screening, 25.7% (6.9 million) reported for prostate-specific antigen screening. In adjusted analysis, estimated shared decision making was a significant predictor of prostate-specific antigen screening (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=2.36, 2.98, p<0.001). The interaction between race/ethnicity and estimated shared decision making on the receipt of prostate-specific antigen screening was significant (p(int)=0.001). Among those who did not report estimated shared decision making, both non-Hispanic Black (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.61, 0.97, p=0.026) and Hispanic (OR=0.51, 95% CI=0.39, 0.68, p<0.001) men were significantly less likely to undergo prostate-specific antigen screening than non-Hispanic White men. On the contrary, among respondents who reported estimated shared decision making, no race-based differences in prostate-specific antigen screening were found.Conclusions: Although much disparities research focuses on race-based differences in prostate-specific antigen screening, research on strategies to mitigate these disparities is needed. Shared decision making might attenuate the impact of race/ethnic disparities on the likelihood of prostate-specific antigen screening.(c) 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 36
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] PSA-based prostate cancer screening: the role of active surveillance and informed and shared decision making
    Venderbos, Lionne D. F.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY, 2011, 13 (02) : 219 - 224
  • [22] Quality Improvement Summit 2016: Shared Decision Making and Prostate Cancer Screening
    Makarov, Danil V.
    Holmes-Rovner, Margaret
    Rovner, David R.
    Averch, Timothy
    Barry, Michael J.
    Chrouser, Kristin
    Gee, William F.
    Goodrich, Kate
    Haynes, Mike
    Krahn, Murray
    Saigal, Christopher
    Sox, Harold C.
    Stacey, Dawn
    Tessier, Christopher
    Waterhouse, Robert L., Jr.
    Fagerlin, Angela
    UROLOGY PRACTICE, 2018, 5 (06) : 444 - 451
  • [23] THE ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATION LEVEL WITH THE UTILIZATION OF SHARED DECISION MAKING IN PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING
    Pereira, Jorge
    Gershman, Boris
    Renzulli, Joseph
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04): : E981 - E982
  • [24] Including Information on Overdiagnosis in Shared Decision Making: A Review of Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aids
    Pathirana, Thanya, I
    Pickles, Kristen
    Riikonen, Jarno M.
    Tikkinen, Kari A. O.
    Bell, Katy J. L.
    Glasziou, Paul
    MDM POLICY & PRACTICE, 2022, 7 (02)
  • [25] SHARED DECISION MAKING IN PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING: A COGNITIVE INTERVIEW STUDY COMPARING DECISION AIDS
    Nalavenkata, Sunny
    Bergengren, Oskar
    McPartland, Zara
    Shill, Daniela
    Dualeh, Khadra
    Lynch, Kathleen
    Emard, Nicholas
    Martin, Sene
    Austria, Mia
    Ogbennaya, Gabriel
    Gonsky, Jason
    Vickers, Andrew
    Fagerlin, Angela
    Li, Yuelin
    Hamilton, Jada G.
    Hay, Jennifer
    Carlsson, Sigrid
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2024, 211 (05): : E395 - E395
  • [26] Decision Making and Prostate Cancer Screening
    Knight, Sara J.
    UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 41 (02) : 257 - +
  • [28] A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making
    Hilary P. Bagshaw
    Alejandro Martinez
    Nastaran Heidari
    David Scheinker
    Alan Pollack
    Radka Stoyanova
    Eric Horwitz
    Gerard Morton
    Amar U. Kishan
    Mark K. Buyyounouski
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 21
  • [29] A personalized decision aid for prostate cancer shared decision making
    Bagshaw, Hilary P.
    Martinez, Alejandro
    Heidari, Nastaran
    Scheinker, David
    Pollack, Alan
    Stoyanova, Radka
    Horwitz, Eric
    Morton, Gerard
    Kishan, Amar U.
    Buyyounouski, Mark K.
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [30] Prostate cancer treatment choices: the GP's role in shared decision making
    Merriel, Samuel W. D.
    Gnanapragasam, Vincent
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2019, 69 (689): : 588 - 589