Elsevier

European Journal of Cancer

Volume 46, Issue 17, November 2010, Pages 3073-3081
European Journal of Cancer

Deciding on PSA-screening – Quality of current consumer information on the Internet

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.011Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose of the study

Given that screening for prostate cancer has the potential to reduce prostate cancer mortality at the expense of considerable overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the availability of core consumer information – correct, balanced and supportive of autonomous decision-making – is a must. We assessed the quality of consumer information available through the Internet per November 2009 and its possible contribution to informed decision-making by potential screenees.

Methods

Consumer information on PSA-screening was sought through the Internet in November 2009. Materials had to be targeted at potential consumers, offered by not-for-profit organisations, released in 2005 or after, in English or Dutch. Per material 2 of the authors assessed independently from each other whether standardised pre-defined topics were addressed, whether the content was correct and which approach was taken towards the decision-making process about uptake.

Results

Twenty-three materials were included, of which 11 were released (shortly) after the results of 2 large randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer had been published in March 2009. That a PSA-test result can be abnormal because of non-cancerous conditions (false positive) and that it may miss prostate cancer (false negative) was not addressed in 2/23 and 8/23 materials, respectively. The risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment was not mentioned in 6 out of 23. PSA-screening was presented as a usual thing to do in some materials, whereas other materials emphasised the voluntary nature of PSA-screening (‘it is your decision’). The content of 19/23 materials was considered sufficiently informative according to the pre-defined criteria, 12/23 materials were considered supportive of informed decision-making by men.

Conclusions

Most materials of not-for-profit organizations supplied adequate information about PSA-screening, whilst the degree of persuasion towards uptake reflected variations in opinions on men’s autonomy regarding their own health.

Introduction

Although evidence for the potential effectiveness of PSA-screening in reducing prostate cancer mortality was only recently published1 and population-based prostate cancer screening programs have not been introduced in Europe (yet), increasing numbers of PSA-screening tests have been performed in recent years. In the United States, up to 52% of the men at risk have had one or more PSA measurements,2 and the numbers in Europe are rising.3

Screening for prostate cancer has the potential to reduce prostate cancer mortality at the population level.1 At the individual level, however, screening participation involves an uncertain benefit and the risk of adverse side effects, e.g. unnecessary treatment of inconsequential disease.4 It has become generally accepted that screen invitees should therefore be enabled to make their own individual evaluation of pros and cons and reach an informed decision about uptake. An informed choice or decision has two core characteristics: first, it is based on relevant, good quality information, and second, the resulting choice reflects the decision-maker’s values.5

In PSA-screening the first step is ‘just a blood test’.6 A low PSA result provides reassurance, but a value above the threshold opens the door to a chain of events with risks of disadvantageous effects, such as overdiagnosis, overtreatment, false positive results and biopsy complications. In theory, decisions to continue or stop can be made at every step; in practice it is difficult to refuse additional diagnostic tests and treatment because ‘both patients and physicians may experience strong positive reinforcement for screening. A patient will be grateful for a negative PSA result or a suspicious PSA result followed by negative biopsy results, whereas a positive PSA result followed by a cancer diagnosis makes a patient grateful that the cancer was detected early’.7 Therefore, the first step, i.e. the decision whether or not to have PSA-screening, is decisive. Decision-making about taking this first step may be supported by information, made available by, e.g. ministries of health, cancer societies and hospitals. We will refer to this information as ‘consumer information’ – and not ‘patient information’ – because the men involved, who may consider uptake of PSA-screening, are not patients. Providing clear, accurate information about the risks of any proposed investigation or treatment, presented in a way potential screenees can understand,8 is complex. The uncertainty of the subsequent steps is difficult to communicate9 and disclosure of negative sides of screening may scare away specific groups, e.g. those with a low social economic status (SES), whilst these same groups may have an increased risk of prostate cancer.10 Consider for instance the situation of African-Americans, who are at an increased risk to develop prostate cancer and more often than Caucasian-Americans have a low SES. Still, the whole screening process needs to be addressed to prevent a man from realising after being diagnosed that, in retrospect, ignorance about prostate cancer disease status was his preference after all.

Although not all potential screenees will want to make an individually based choice, according to Irwig and colleagues, still all screenees ‘should be aware of the screening programme and have received and understood an agreed minimum of information about benefits and harms of the procedure’.11 Such an agreed minimum of information, also referred to as ‘core disclosure’, can enable potential screenees to ask relevant questions and also help them to decide whether they want to enter the screening process or not.

We assessed the content of currently available consumer information and the approach taken towards the decision-making process of men who consider uptake of PSA-screening.

Section snippets

Consumer information

In November 2009 consumer information was sought through the Internet by two of the authors (I.K., R.v.d.B.) using the following search terms: ‘PSA patient information’ (+.pdf), ‘prostate screening information’, ‘PSA leaflet’ (+pdf), ‘PSA-screening leaflet PDF’, ‘prostate cancer screening leaflet PDF’. Per search the first 100–150 hits were checked for relevant materials that were targeted at potential consumers, i.e. men who consider uptake of PSA-screening, offered by not-for-profit

Results

Twenty-three materials were included, mainly offered by organisations from the USA (n = 11) and the United Kingdom (n = 7), but also from Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia, see Table 1. The information was released between 2005 and 2009 with number of words ranging from a minimum 450 to almost 6000 words. Eleven materials were released after March 2009.

Discussion

Most materials of not-for-profit organizations supplied adequate information, whilst the variation in both content and lay-out was considerable. We found that the key points of PSA-screening, considered essential when deciding about uptake of screening, were discussed in 19 out of 23 materials. Whilst PSA-screening was not recommended in the majority of cases, the degree of persuasion towards uptake, i.e. the degree of guiding men towards the adoption of PSA-screening, reflected variations in

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Acknowledgement

We gratefully acknowledge the Dutch Cancer Society for funding a fellowship for one of the authors (I.K.).

References (47)

  • K.A. van den Bergh et al.

    Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer

    Eur Respir J

    (2009)
  • E. Rapiti et al.

    Impact of socioeconomic status on prostate cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis

    Cancer

    (2009)
  • L. Irwig et al.

    Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation

    Brit Med J

    (2006)
  • N. Wald

    Information leaflets in medical screening

    J Med Screen

    (2006)
  • National Cancer Institute (NCI). Designing Print Materials: a communications Guide for Breast Cancer Screening....
  • General Medical Council. Seeking Patients’ Consent: the Ethical Considerations;...
  • A. Clements et al.

    The PSA testing dilemma: GPs’ reports of consultations with asymptomatic men: a qualitative study

    BMC Fam Pract

    (2007)
  • International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. IPDAS 2005: Criteria for judging the quality of...
  • W. Osterlie et al.

    Challenges of informed choice in organised screening

    J Med Ethics

    (2008)
  • R.A. Smith et al.

    Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2010)
  • R. Fox

    Informed choice in screening programmes: do leaflets help? A critical literature review

    J Public Health

    (2006)
  • V.A. Entwistle et al.

    Communicating about screening

    Brit Med J

    (2008)
  • A.M. Stiggelbout et al.

    Ideals of patient autonomy in clinical decision making: a study on the development of a scale to assess patients’ and physicians’ views

    J Med Ethics

    (2004)
  • Cited by (10)

    • Informed decision-making based on a leaflet in the context of prostate cancer screening

      2019, Patient Education and Counseling
      Citation Excerpt :

      Consequently, the aim of this study is to assess to what extent men make informed choices in the context of prostate cancer screening and how written information contributes to that process. We developed a leaflet about prostate cancer screening based on a study about the information quality of PSA screening programs, literature about the communication of medical information, and leaflets of already existing screening programs [8,14–21]. This leaflet was developed for a potential pilot of a population-based prostate cancer screening program in the Netherlands.

    • How reliable are "reputable sources" for medical information on the internet? The case of hormonal therapy to treat prostate cancer

      2013, Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
      Citation Excerpt :

      Sillence et al. [16] showed that Internet users more readily trust sites that (1) are better designed (e.g., good layout, less pop-ups); (2) seem to present unbiased information; (3) appear to consider patient perspective; and (4) are owned by reputable organizations. Nonprofit organizations engendered the most trust in this regard and in several studies have been shown to have the most reliable information [17,18]. In this study, we examine the quality of medical information on Internet sites that both patients and healthcare providers might expect to be highly reliable and up-to-date based on the mission and prestige of the organizations that own the sites.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text