Skip to main content

Table 5 Effect of the intervention on men’s decisions and actual screening rates

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) §

Intent for Screening Post Intervention

79% (55)

45% (26)

−34% (−50% to −18%)

0.57 (0.42 to 0.78)

0.46 (0.34 to 0.73)

0.57 (0.35 to 0.81)

0.18 ( 0.06 to 0.48)∥

Patient reported screening after clinical visit

31% (16)

11% (4)

−21% (−38% to −4%)

0.44 (0.17 to 1.08)

0.27 (0.12 to ∞)

0.43 (0.16 to 0.96)

0.42 (0.14 to 1.24)∥

Actual Screening at 9 months

41% (29)

19% (11)

−22% (−38 to −7%)

0.45 (0.25 to 0.83)

0.43 (0.26 to 1.41)

0.42 (0.20 to 0.81)

0.76 (0.50 to 0.97)**

  1. * Pearson’s 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 and for 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. ∥Adjusted only for plans for PSA testing; other covariates dropped out of model.
  6. ** Adjusted only for History of PSA test; other other covariates dropped out of model.
Back to article page

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

ISSN: 1472-6947

Contact us