Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 The effect of the intervention on key components of decision making

From: Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials

  Control, % (n) Intervention, % (n) Unadjusted absolute difference Unadjusted RR Adjusted RR Adjusted RR Adjusted RR
(n = 70) (n = 58) (95% CI)* (95% CI) (95% CI)† (95% CI) ‡ (95% CI) §
Overall
% of Men Agreeing PSA is a Decision, post-intervention: 23% (16) 64% (37) 41% (25 to 57%) 2.79 (1.74 to 4.47) 3.57 (2.33 to 7.69) 2.79 (1.96 to 3.47) ---
% Men Having Key Knowledge, post intervention: 13% (9) 47% (27) 34% (19 to 50%) 3.63 (1.86 to 7.08) 4.55 (2.38 to 33.3) 4.28 (2.30 to 6.45) ---
  Among Men Who Talked with Their Doctor about PSA Testing
  Control, % (n) Intervention, % (n) Absolute Difference   Adjusted RR Adjusted RR Adjusted RR
(n = 51) (n = 38) (95% CI)*   (95% CI)† (95% CI)‡ (95% CI) §
% of Men Reporting Shared Decisions, post-visit: 76% (39/51) 74% (28/38) −3% (−21% to +15%) 0.96 (0.76 to 1.23) 1.01 (0.76 to 1.27) 0.96 (0.67 to 1.15) ---
% of Men Reporting Participation at preferred level, post-visit 76% (39/51) 71% (27/38) −5% (−24% to +13%) 0.92 (0.72 to 1.20) 0.93 (0.74 to 1.23) 0.92 (0.64 to 1.11) ---
  1. *Pearson Chi-square tests.
  2. † Adjusted for random effects of physician.
  3. ‡ Adjusted for random effects of physician and practice.
  4. §Adjusted for random effects of physician and practice + family history of prostate cancer, history of PSA testing, receipt of physician recommendation for testing, current plans for PSA testing, and patient approach to discussing PSA testing at next visit (as applicable after stepwise regression).
  5. Not reported because no baseline variables retained in model during modeling process.