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

Rae Thomas, Paul Glasziou, Lucie Rychetnik, Geraldine Mackenzie, Robert Gardiner, Jenny Doust

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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's 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

Conclusions: Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere005691
Number of pages8
JournalBMJ Open
Volume4
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Democracy
Prostate-Specific Antigen
Early Detection of Cancer
Prostatic Neoplasms
Control Groups
Ghana
Newspapers
Random Allocation
Radio
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Cite this

@article{b671119ca6494454b5dfe5fbe5498bdf,
title = "Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: A randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening",
abstract = "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's 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, pConclusions: Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.",
author = "Rae Thomas and Paul Glasziou and Lucie Rychetnik and Geraldine Mackenzie and Robert Gardiner and Jenny Doust",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005691",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent : A randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening. / Thomas, Rae; Glasziou, Paul; Rychetnik, Lucie; Mackenzie, Geraldine; Gardiner, Robert; Doust, Jenny.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 4, No. 12, e005691, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent

T2 - A randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening

AU - Thomas, Rae

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Rychetnik, Lucie

AU - Mackenzie, Geraldine

AU - Gardiner, Robert

AU - Doust, Jenny

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - 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's 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, pConclusions: Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.

AB - 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's 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, pConclusions: Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920742506&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005691

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005691

M3 - Article

VL - 4

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 12

M1 - e005691

ER -