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.
Bottom Line: 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.Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test.Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001).
Affiliation: Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus
Mentions: We recruited men in the target age group of 50–70 years from the Gold Coast region (Australia) who had no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer, using media advertisements, radio interviews and community groups. Men with a family history of prostate cancer were not excluded from participating. Eligible and available respondents attended a session on a Friday evening to receive a full briefing on the study; all agreed to participate and completed a consent form, before being randomly allocated to either a community jury group or a control group (figure 1). Random allocation occurred by each man selecting a piece of paper with the name of either group from an opaque container. The protocol is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831).
Affiliation: Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.