title: Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To make good decisions about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, men must consider how they value the different potential outcomes.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine the effects of different methods of helping men consider such values.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized trial from October 12 to 27, 2011, in the general community.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 911 men aged 50 to 70 years from the United States and Australia who had average risk. Participants were drawn from online panels from a survey research firm in each country and were randomized by the survey firm to 1 of 3 values clarification methods: a balance sheet (n = 302), a rating and ranking task (n = 307), or a discrete choice experiment (n = 302).
  
  
  METHODS
  Participants underwent a values clarification task and then chose the most important attribute.
  
  
  METHODS
  The main outcome was the difference among groups in the most important attribute. Secondary outcomes were differences in unlabeled test preference and intent to undergo screening with PSA.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean age was 59.8 years; most participants were white and more than one-third had graduated from college. More than 40% reported a PSA test within 12 months. The participants who received the rating and ranking task were more likely to report reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer as being most important (54.4%) compared with those who received the balance sheet (35.1%) or the discrete choice experiment (32.5%) (P < .001). Those receiving the balance sheet were more likely (43.7%) to prefer the unlabeled PSA-like option (as opposed to the "no screening"-like option) compared with those who received rating and ranking (34.2%) or the discrete choice experiment (20.2%). However, the proportion who intended to undergo PSA testing was high and did not differ between groups (balance sheet, 77.1%; rating and ranking, 76.8%; and discrete choice experiment, 73.5%; P = .73).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Different values clarification methods produce different patterns of attribute importance and different preferences for screening when presented with an unlabeled choice. Further studies with more distal outcome measures are needed to determine the best method of values clarification, if any, for decisions such as whether to undergo screening with PSA.
authors: Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 725 Martin LutherKing Jr Blvd, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. pignone@med.unc.edu
authors: Michael Patrick
authors: MP
authors: Pignone
authors: Kirsten
authors: K
authors: Howard
authors: Alison Tytell
authors: AT
authors: Brenner
authors: Trisha Melinda
authors: TM
authors: Crutchfield
authors: Sarah Tropman
authors: ST
authors: Hawley
authors: Carmen Lynn
authors: CL
authors: Lewis
authors: Stacey Lynn
authors: SL
authors: Sheridan
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D001315:Australia; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D003657:Decision Making; D004522:Educational Status; D005006:Ethnicity; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D062526:Patient Navigation / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D010358:Patient Participation / Q000379:methods / Q000523:psychology; D011314:Preventive Health Services / Q000379:methods / Q000458:organization & administration; D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen / Q000097:blood*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000097:blood / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000523:psychology; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D017430:Prostate-Specific Antigen
references: Value Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;13(2):315-23
references: 19912597
references: Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):554-74
references: 17873255
references: Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
references: 21669364
references: Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77
references: 18620460
references: Arch Intern Med. 2009 Sep 28;169(17):1603-10
references: 19786680
references: JAMA. 1999 Dec 22-29;282(24):2313-20
references: 10612318
references: J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Jan;27(1):45-50
references: 21870192
references: Patient. 2010 Dec 1;3(4):249-56
references: 22273432
references: Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 17;157(2):120-34
references: 22801674
references: BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 07;2(1):e000587
references: 22226686
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Feb;60(2):181-92
references: 2016668
references: Arch Intern Med. 2008 Feb 25;168(4):363-9
references: 18299490
references: Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):56-66
references: 14700714
references: Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):354-63
references: 18657102
references: Ann Intern Med. 2011 Dec 6;155(11):762-71
references: 21984740
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Oct 05;(10):CD001431
references: 21975733
references: BMJ. 2006 Aug 26;333(7565):417
references: 16908462
references: PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705
references: 19259269
references: N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 15;366(11):981-90
references: 22417251
references: Health Econ. 2009 Mar;18(3):321-36
references: 18651601
references: Patient. 2008 Dec 1;1(4):273-82
references: 22272995