BackgroundWhether early detection and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) will reduce disease-related mortality remains uncertain. As a result, tools are needed to facilitate informed decision making. While there have been several decision aids (DAs) developed and tested, very few have included an exercise to help men clarify their values and preferences about PCa screening. Further, only one DA has utilized an interactive web-based format, which allows for an expansion and customization of the material. We describe the development of two DAs, a booklet and an interactive website, each with a values clarification component and designed for use in diverse settings.MethodsWe conducted two feasibility studies to assess men's (45-70 years) Internet access and their willingness to use a web- vs. a print-based tool. The booklet was adapted from two previous versions evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the website was created to closely match the content of the revised booklet. Usability testing was conducted to obtain feedback regarding draft versions of the materials. The tools were also reviewed by a plain language expert and the interdisciplinary research team. Feedback on the content and presentation led to iterative modifications of the tools.ResultsThe feasibility studies confirmed that the Internet was a viable medium, as the majority of men used a computer, had access to the Internet, and Internet use increased over time. Feedback from the usability testing on the length, presentation, and content of the materials was incorporated into the final versions of the booklet and website. Both the feasibility studies and the usability testing highlighted the need to address men's informed decision making regarding screening.ConclusionsInformed decision making for PCa screening is crucial at present and may be important for some time, particularly if a definitive recommendation either for or against screening does not emerge from ongoing prostate cancer screening trials. We have detailed our efforts at developing print- and web-based DAs to assist men in determining how to best meet their PCa screening preferences. Following completion of our ongoing RCT designed to test these materials, our goal will be to develop a dissemination project for the more effective tool.Trial RegistrationNCT00623090

Most medical organizations recommend informed decision making before undergoing prostate cancer screening. The authors conducted a detailed evaluation of men's use of an interactive, Web-based prostate cancer screening decision aid. Participants (N = 531) were 57 years old (SD = 6.8), 37% were African American, and 92% had Internet access. Men completed 2 telephone interviews, pre- and 1-month post-Web site availability. Half of the sample (n = 256) accessed the Web site. Multivariate analysis revealed that users were more likely than nonusers to be White (OR = 2.37, CI 1.6-3.6), previously screened (OR = 2.13, CI 1.07-4.26), have Internet access (OR = 3.66, CI 1.15-11.58), and to report daily Internet use (OR = 2.58, CI 1.47-4.55). Agreement between self-reported and actual Web site use was moderate (κ = .67). Tracking software revealed a mean of 1.3 (SD = 0.5) log-ons and a median of 38 min per log-on. Of participants, 84% used the values clarification tool, and more than 50% viewed each video testimonial. Baseline screening preference was associated with values clarification tool responses and Web site feedback. This study revealed that, beyond the digital divide, Web site use depended on more than Internet access. Further, electronic tracking of Web site use demonstrated overestimation of self-reported use, high use of interactive features, and effect of baseline screening preference on men's response to the Web site.

These models, if validated externally, may have public health utility in identifying individuals at risk for adverse smoking outcomes, who may benefit from relapse prevention and smoking cessation interventions.

BACKGROUND Evidence suggests that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces disease-specific mortality, whereas the utility of prostate cancer screening remains uncertain. However, adherence rates for prostate cancer screening and CRC screening are very similar, with population-based studies showing that approximately 50% of eligible US men are adherent to both tests. Among men scheduled to participate in a free prostate cancer screening program, the authors assessed the rates and correlates of CRC screening to determine the utility of this setting for addressing CRC screening nonadherence. METHODS Participants (N = 331) were 50 to 70 years old with no history of prostate cancer or CRC. Men registered for free prostate cancer screening and completed a telephone interview 1 to 2 weeks before undergoing prostate cancer screening. RESULTS One half of the participants who underwent free prostate cancer screening were eligible for but nonadherent to CRC screening. Importantly, 76% of the men who were nonadherent to CRC screening had a regular physician and/or health insurance, suggesting that CRC screening adherence was feasible in this group. Furthermore, multivariate analyses indicated that the only significant correlates of CRC screening adherence were having a regular physician, health insurance, and a history of prostate cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS Free prostate cancer screening programs may provide a teachable moment to increase CRC screening among men who may not have the usual systemic barriers to CRC screening, at a time when they may be very receptive to cancer screening messages. In the United States, a large number of men participate in annual free prostate cancer screening programs and represent an easily accessible and untapped group that can benefit from interventions to increase CRC screening rates.