Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review
Por:
Vernooij, RWM, Lytvyn, L, Pardo-Hernandez, H, Albarqouni, L, Canelo-Aybar, C, Campbell, K, Agoritsas, T
Publicada:
1 sep 2018
Resumen:
Objectives To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.
Design Systematic review.
Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.
Eligibility criteria Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.
Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.
Results We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.
Conclusion The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.
Trial registration number CRD42018095585.
Filiaciones:
Vernooij, RWM:
Netherlands Comprehens Canc Org, Dept Res, Utrecht, Netherlands
Lytvyn, L:
McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods, Burlington, ON, Canada
Pardo-Hernandez, H:
Inst Biomed Res, Iberoamer Cochrane Ctr, Barcelona, Spain
Albarqouni, L:
Bond Univ, Fac Hlth Sci & Med, CREBP, Gold Coast, Australia
Canelo-Aybar, C:
Inst Biomed Res, Iberoamer Cochrane Ctr, Barcelona, Spain
Univ Peruana Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru
Campbell, K:
McMaster Univ, Sch Nursing, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Agoritsas, T:
McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods, Burlington, ON, Canada
Univ Hosp Geneva, Div Gen Internal Med, Geneva, Switzerland
Univ Hosp Geneva, Div Clin Epidemiol, Geneva, Switzerland
Gold, Green Published
|