首页> 外文OA文献 >Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: A randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men\u27s knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening
【2h】

Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: A randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men\u27s knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening

机译:协商民主和癌症筛查同意:一项社区陪审团对男性参与PSA筛查的知识和意图影响的随机对照试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Objective Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men\u27s knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening.Design Random allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment.Setting Participants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings.Participants Twenty-six men aged 50–70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer.Intervention The control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions.Main outcome and measures Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer.Results Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=−0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p\u3c0.001).Conclusions Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men\u27s individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.
机译:客观前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)筛查存在争议。社区陪审团可以提供复杂的信息,并可以阐明参与者在获得充分信息后如何看待筛查。我们研究了参加社区陪审团是否会影响男性的知识以及他们参与PSA筛查的意图。设计将随机分配给2天社区陪审团或对照组,并进行预评估,后评估和3个月随访评估。通过广播,报纸和社区会议从澳大利亚黄金海岸招募参与者。参与者年龄在50-70岁之间的26名男性以前没有诊断出前列腺癌。干预对照组(n = 14)收到有关PSA筛选的情况介绍。社区陪审员(n = 12)获得了相同的情况介绍,以及有关筛查前列腺癌的更多信息。此外,三位专家介绍了PSA筛查的信息:一位中立的科学顾问提供了背景信息,一位专家强调了筛查的潜在益处,另一位专家强调了潜在的危害。参与者讨论了信息,向专家提出了问题,并就个人和政策决定进行了讨论。主要结果和措施我们的主要结果是改变个人进行PSA筛查测试的意图。我们还评估了有关筛查前列腺癌的知识。结果使用意向性治疗进行了分析。陪审团结束后,社区陪审团对前列腺癌的筛查意愿比对照组的男性要少(效果量= -0.6 SD,p = 0.05)。这在三个月的随访中得以维持。社区陪审团人员还正确地确定了PSA测试的准确性,并认为自己更为有根据(效应量= 1.2 SD,p \ u3c0.001)。对于前列腺癌。社区陪审团可能是吸引目标群体参与政策决策的有效方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号