在线成年男性群体对前列腺癌筛查的看法和误解。

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Current oncology Pub Date : 2024-10-20 DOI:10.3390/curroncol31100475
Tyler Sheetz, Tasha Posid, Aliza Khuhro, Alicia Scimeca, Sarah Beebe, Essa Gul, Shawn Dason
{"title":"在线成年男性群体对前列腺癌筛查的看法和误解。","authors":"Tyler Sheetz, Tasha Posid, Aliza Khuhro, Alicia Scimeca, Sarah Beebe, Essa Gul, Shawn Dason","doi":"10.3390/curroncol31100475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Congruent with most guideline publishers, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) recommends shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA screening (PSAS) for prostate cancer (PCa) following a discussion of its benefits and harms. However, there are limited data on how the general male population feels about these topics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was completed by 906 male-identifying participants (age > 18) recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which is a crowdsourcing platform providing minimal compensation. Participants answered questions regarding demographics (15), personal/family history (9), PCa/PSA knowledge (41), and opinions regarding PSAS (45).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age was 38.2 (SD = 12.0), with 22% reporting a family history of PCa and 20% reporting personally undergoing PSAS. Although most participants had heard of PCa (85%) and that they could be screened for it (81%), they generally did not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS guidelines. Most want to talk to their clinician about PCa and PSAS (74%) and are supportive of SDM (48%) or patient-centered decision-making (25%). In general, participants thought PSAS was still worthwhile, even if it led to additional testing or side effects. Similarly, participants thought higher-risk patients should be screened earlier (<i>p</i> < 0.001). A number of misconceptions were evident in the responses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Men approaching the age of PSAS do not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS and want their clinician to discuss these topics with them. The majority believe in PSAS and would like to undergo this screening following SDM. Clinicians also have a role in correcting common misconceptions about PCa.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"31 10","pages":"6395-6405"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspectives and Misconceptions of an Online Adult Male Cohort Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening.\",\"authors\":\"Tyler Sheetz, Tasha Posid, Aliza Khuhro, Alicia Scimeca, Sarah Beebe, Essa Gul, Shawn Dason\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/curroncol31100475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Congruent with most guideline publishers, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) recommends shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA screening (PSAS) for prostate cancer (PCa) following a discussion of its benefits and harms. However, there are limited data on how the general male population feels about these topics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was completed by 906 male-identifying participants (age > 18) recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which is a crowdsourcing platform providing minimal compensation. Participants answered questions regarding demographics (15), personal/family history (9), PCa/PSA knowledge (41), and opinions regarding PSAS (45).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age was 38.2 (SD = 12.0), with 22% reporting a family history of PCa and 20% reporting personally undergoing PSAS. Although most participants had heard of PCa (85%) and that they could be screened for it (81%), they generally did not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS guidelines. Most want to talk to their clinician about PCa and PSAS (74%) and are supportive of SDM (48%) or patient-centered decision-making (25%). In general, participants thought PSAS was still worthwhile, even if it led to additional testing or side effects. Similarly, participants thought higher-risk patients should be screened earlier (<i>p</i> < 0.001). A number of misconceptions were evident in the responses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Men approaching the age of PSAS do not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS and want their clinician to discuss these topics with them. The majority believe in PSAS and would like to undergo this screening following SDM. Clinicians also have a role in correcting common misconceptions about PCa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current oncology\",\"volume\":\"31 10\",\"pages\":\"6395-6405\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506613/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100475\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100475","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:加拿大泌尿外科协会(CUA)与大多数指南出版商一样,在讨论了前列腺癌(PCa)筛查(PSAS)的益处和危害后,建议共同决策(SDM)。然而,关于普通男性对这些话题的看法的数据却很有限:通过 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) 这一提供最低报酬的众包平台招募了 906 名男性身份识别参与者(年龄大于 18 岁),他们完成了一项调查。参与者回答了有关人口统计学(15)、个人/家族病史(9)、PCa/PSA 知识(41)以及对 PSAS 的看法(45)等问题:中位年龄为 38.2 岁(SD = 12.0),22% 的人表示有 PCa 家族史,20% 的人表示曾接受过 PSAS 治疗。虽然大多数参与者听说过 PCa(85%),也知道可以进行 PCa 筛查(81%),但他们普遍认为自己对 PCa 或 PSAS 指南缺乏了解。大多数人希望与临床医生讨论 PCa 和 PSAS(74%),并支持 SDM(48%)或以患者为中心的决策(25%)。一般来说,参与者认为 PSAS 仍有价值,即使会导致额外的检查或副作用。同样,参与者认为高风险患者应更早接受筛查(P < 0.001)。答复中明显存在一些误解:结论:即将达到 PSAS 年龄的男性不了解 PCa 或 PSAS,希望临床医生与他们讨论这些话题。大多数人相信 PSAS,并希望在 SDM 之后接受该筛查。临床医生也有责任纠正人们对 PCa 的常见误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Perspectives and Misconceptions of an Online Adult Male Cohort Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening.

Introduction: Congruent with most guideline publishers, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) recommends shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA screening (PSAS) for prostate cancer (PCa) following a discussion of its benefits and harms. However, there are limited data on how the general male population feels about these topics.

Methods: A survey was completed by 906 male-identifying participants (age > 18) recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which is a crowdsourcing platform providing minimal compensation. Participants answered questions regarding demographics (15), personal/family history (9), PCa/PSA knowledge (41), and opinions regarding PSAS (45).

Results: The median age was 38.2 (SD = 12.0), with 22% reporting a family history of PCa and 20% reporting personally undergoing PSAS. Although most participants had heard of PCa (85%) and that they could be screened for it (81%), they generally did not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS guidelines. Most want to talk to their clinician about PCa and PSAS (74%) and are supportive of SDM (48%) or patient-centered decision-making (25%). In general, participants thought PSAS was still worthwhile, even if it led to additional testing or side effects. Similarly, participants thought higher-risk patients should be screened earlier (p < 0.001). A number of misconceptions were evident in the responses.

Conclusions: Men approaching the age of PSAS do not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS and want their clinician to discuss these topics with them. The majority believe in PSAS and would like to undergo this screening following SDM. Clinicians also have a role in correcting common misconceptions about PCa.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current oncology
Current oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
664
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease. We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.
期刊最新文献
Real-World Treatment Pathways of Adult Patients with Glioblastoma and Other CNS Tumors: A Population-Based Registry Study. A Rare Case of Descending Colon Metastasis Following Radical Nephroureterectomy for Left Ureteral Carcinoma: A Case Report and Literature Review. Gender Differences in Palliative Care Experience and Quality Perceptions Among Cancer Patients in Saudi Arabia: Implications for Nursing Practice. Outcome Measures to Assess the Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions on Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN): A Scoping Review. The Mediating Role of Team Resilience at Work Between Teamwork Practice Environment, Team Functioning and Cohesion in Oncology: A Cross-Sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1