Prostate-specific antigen screening: An update of physician beliefs and practices

Hall, Ingrid J.; Rim, Sun Hee; Massetti, Greta M.; Thomas, Cheryll C.; Li, Jun; Richardson, Lisa C.

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.08.004

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…About 39% of PCPs and 40% of NPs had been practicing medicine for 11-20 years, and 31% of PCPs and 23% of NPs were long-term practitioners of > 20 years. Demographic characteristics of PCPs are similar to that recently reported by Hall et al [10].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Primary Care Providers’ Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision aids are tools intended to help people weigh the benefits and harms of a health decision. We examined primary care providers' perspective on use of decision aids and explored whether providers' beliefs and interest in use of a decision aid was associated with offering the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for early detection of prostate cancer. Data were obtained from 2016 DocStyles, an annual, web-based survey of U.S. healthcare professionals including primary care physicians (n = 1003) and nurse practitioners (n = 253). We found that the majority of primary care providers reported not using (patient) decision aids for prostate cancer screening, but were interested in learning about and incorporating these tools in their practice. Given the potential of decision aids to guide in informed decision-making, there is an opportunity for evaluating existing decision aids for prostate cancer screening for clinical use.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Primary Care Providers’ Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study, answers to the question concerning the proportion of men aged ≥45 years that received (at least) one PSA test varied widely, whereas the frequency of ordering PSA tests among GPs in Sweden showed moderate variation (25). Compared with primary care physicians in the US, physicians in our study were more proactive in recommending a PSA test (24). One-quarter of physicians in the US study routinely offered and recommended a PSA test to all asymptomatic male patients of screening age, regardless of whether the patient asked about the test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…In contrast, about one-fifth of the GPs in our study supported this assumption. However, a US-based study showed that three-quarters of the primary care physicians surveyed strongly disagreed, disagreed, or were undecided as to whether the PSA test extended life (24). This may be due, in part, to the results of a systematic review, concluding that at best, PCa screening leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has no effect on overall mortality (9).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes Toward and Use of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Urologists and General Practitioners in Germany: A Survey

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn 2020, around 1.4 million new prostate cancer (PCa) cases were recorded worldwide. Early detection of PCa by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening remains debated, leading to different specialist-specific recommendations in PCa guidelines. This study aimed to assess attitudes toward and use of PSA testing among urologists in Germany and general practitioners (GPs) in Lower Saxony (Germany).MethodsA nationwide questionnaire was sent to urologists via the mailing lists of the Professional Association of German Urologists and the German Urological Society. A version of the questionnaire for GPs was sent to email addresses via the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Lower Saxony. The online questionnaires covered use of PSA testing, information communication, handling of test results, and handling of/knowledge about national and international guidelines and recommendations on early detection of PCa. Statistical analysis was performed at a descriptive level.ResultsIn total, 432 of 6,568 urologists (6.6%) and 96 of 1,579 GPs (6.1%) participated in this survey. Urologists and GPs differed in their attitudes and approaches toward PSA testing. Most urologists (86.8%, n=375) judged the test as “very meaningful” or “meaningful”, compared with 52.1% (n=50) of GPs. Almost two-thirds of the urologists (64.4%, n=278) viewed the PCa mortality reduction by PSA testing as proven, compared with one-fifth of GPs (20.8%, n=20). Almost 80% of male urologists (79.9%, n=291) indicated that they would undergo a PSA test in the future (again), compared with 55.1% of male GPs (n=38). In addition, 56.3% (n=243) of urologists stated that “considerably more than half” or “almost all” men aged 45 years or older received a PSA test, compared with 19.8% (n=19) of GPs.ConclusionsUrologists are more convinced about the PSA test than GPs. PSA testing is therefore used more often in urological settings, although the preselected patient population must be considered. In accordance with specialist-specific recommendations, GPs show a more reserved approach toward PSA testing. Instead of focusing on different attitudes and recommendations on PSA testing, the exchange between specialist groups should be improved to achieve a consistent approach to PSA testing.

show abstract

“…The reason for the exclusion of full texts was mainly that the results were unrelated to the aim of the study. Finally, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria (11,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33).…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All articles were cross-sectional, and 7 of them (50%) were published between 2015 and 2017. Most of them were carried out in the USA (5, 35.7%) (21,23,25,29,31), 2 (14.3%) in Spain (24, 26), and the rest in countries such as Malaysia (22), Saudi Arabia (27), Netherlands (28), South Africa (30), Caribbean (32), Switzerland (33), and Germany (11) (Table 1).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Identified Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urologists’ and general practitioners’ knowledge, beliefs and practice relevant for opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review

Estevan-Ortega,

de la Encarnación Castellano,

Mendiola-López

et al. 2024

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRecent guidelines on opportunistic prostate cancer screening conclude that the decision to screen with prostate-specific antigen should be made by each patient individually together with the clinician. However, there is evidence of a lack of clinicians’ awareness of prostate cancer screening. This study sought to assess the recent evidence of clinicians’ knowledge, beliefs, and practice regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening comparing urologists and generals practitioners.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in 3 online databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE (from January 1, 2015, to January 9th, 2023). Studies that explored clinicians’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening were included. Studies were assessed for quality reporting according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines.ResultsA total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: ten studies included primary care health professionals, three studies included urologists, and one study included both. Studies involving general practitioners showed a generally low level of awareness of the recommended uses of the test, and urologists showed a greater knowledge of clinical practice guidelines. General practitioners’ opinion of prostate-specific antigen was generally unfavourable in contrast to urologists’ who were more likely to be proactive in ordering the test. Less than half of the included studies evaluated shared-decision making in practice and 50% of clinicians surveyed implemented it.ConclusionGeneral practitioners had less knowledge of prostate cancer risk factors and clinical practice guidelines in the use of PSA than urologists, which makes them less likely to follow available recommendations. A need to carry out education interventions with trusted resources based on the available evidence and the current guidelines was identified.

show abstract

Prostate-specific antigen screening: An update of physician beliefs and practices

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

Primary Care Providers’ Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening

Primary Care Providers’ Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening

Attitudes Toward and Use of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Urologists and General Practitioners in Germany: A Survey

Urologists’ and general practitioners’ knowledge, beliefs and practice relevant for opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About