title: Primary care physicians' reported use of pre-screening discussions for prostate cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Professional medical organizations recommend individualized patient decision making about prostate cancer screening. Little is known about primary care physicians' use of pre-screening discussions to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. The aim of this study is to explore physicians' use of pre-screening discussions and reasons why physicians would or would not try to persuade patients to be screened if they initially refuse testing.
  
  
  METHODS
  Primary care physicians completed a self-administered survey about prostate cancer screening practices for informed decision making.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Sixty-six physicians (75.9%) completed the survey, and 63 were used in the analysis. Thirteen physicians (20.6%) reported not using prescreening discussions, 45 (71.4%) reported the use of prescreening discussions, and 3 (4.8%) reported neither ordering the PSA test nor discussing it with patients. Sixty-nine percent of physicians who reported not having discussions indicated they were more likely to screen African American patients for prostate cancer, compared to 50% of physicians who reported the use of discussions (Chi-square(1) = 1.62, p = .20). Similarly, 91% of physicians who reported not having discussions indicated they are more likely to screen patients with a family history of prostate cancer, compared to 46% of those who reported the use of discussion (Chi-square(1) = 13.27, p < .001). Beliefs about the scientific evidence and efficacy of screening, ethical concerns regarding patient autonomy, and concerns about time constraints differed between physicians who would and would not try to persuade a patient to be tested.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although guidelines recommend discussing the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening, physicians report varying practice styles. Future research needs to consider the nature of discussions and the degree to which informed decision making is being achieved in clinical practice.
authors.affiliation: Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA. skneuper@bcm.edu
authors.forename: Suzanne K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Linder
authors.forename: Sarah T
authors.initials: ST
authors.lastname: Hawley
authors.forename: Crystale P
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Cooper
authors.forename: Lawrence E
authors.initials: LE
authors.lastname: Scholl
authors.forename: Maria
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Jibaja-Weiss
authors.forename: Robert J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Volk
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D019983:Guideline Adherence; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening; D010358:Patient Participation; D010821:Physicians, Family / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen / Q000097:blood; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000208:ethnology; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
chemical_list: D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen