English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives: Efforts to educate men about the controversy surrounding prostate cancer screening are well intended but rarely evaluated rigorously. We evaluated an evidence-based (EB) booklet for men designed to promote informed decision-making. We also determined whether men's preference for involvement in decision-making ("passive", "collaborative" or "active") modified its impact.    Setting and methods: Men aged 40-70 years were recruited from the practices of 13 local general practitioners (GPs) in Sydney, Australia. They completed a self-administered questionnaire before seeing their GP, who, according to pre-randomised codes, distributed either our EB booklet or conventional information. Post-test questionnaires were mailed to men three days later. Of the 248 eligible men recruited, 214 (86% response rate) returned post-test questionnaires. Knowledge of evidence and of risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer, attitudes, interest in screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), worry and decisional conflict were the main outcome measures.    Results: Compared with those receiving conventional information, men receiving the EB booklet had significantly improved knowledge (50% of items correct, 95% CI 46-53%; vs 45% correct, 95% CI 42-48%) (p=0.048) and lower levels of decisional conflict (mean 21.6, 95% CI 20.7-22.5; vs mean 24.3, 95% CI 23.4-25.2) (p&lt;0.001). Interest in PSA screening was significantly reduced in both groups at post-test (p&lt;0.001). Men preferring a "passive" approach to decision-making gained as much from our EB booklet as those with "active" or "collaborative" preferences.    Conclusions: Our findings show the benefits of providing evidence-based information to men about PSA screening. Our EB booklet facilitated informed choice, even among "passive" decision-makers.

Original Paper: Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomised controlled trial