Abstract

BackgroundDespite the recent publication of results from two randomized clinical trials, prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains a controversial issue. There is lack of agreement across studies that PSA screening significantly reduces prostate cancer mortality. In spite of these facts, the widespread use of PSA testing in the United States leads to overdetection and overtreatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer, and its associated harms of incontinence and impotence.DiscussionGiven the inconclusive results from clinical trials and incongruent PSA screening guidelines, the decision to screen for prostate cancer with PSA testing is an uncertain one for patients and health care providers. Screening guidelines from some health organizations recommend an informed decision making (IDM) or shared decision making (SDM) approach for deciding on PSA screening. These approaches aim to empower patients to choose among the available options by making them active participants in the decision making process. By increasing involvement of patients in the clinical decision-making process, IDM/SDM places more of the responsibility for a complex decision on the patient. Research suggests, however, that patients are not well-informed of the harms and benefits associated with prostate cancer screening and are also subject to an assortment of biases, emotion, fears, and irrational thought that interferes with making an informed decision. In response, the IDM/SDM approaches can be augmented with strategies from the philosophy of libertarian paternalism (LP) to improve decision making. LP uses the insights of behavioural economics to help people better make better choices. Some of the main strategies of LP applicable to PSA decision making are a default decision rule, framing of decision aids, and timing of the decision. In this paper, we propose that applying strategies from libertarian paternalism can help with PSA screening decision-making.SummaryOur proposal to augment IDM and SDM approaches with libertarian paternalism strategies is intended to guide patients toward a better decision about testing while maintaining personal freedom of choice. While PSA screening remains controversial and evidence conflicting, a libertarian-paternalism influenced approach to decision making can help prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

Highlights

  • Despite the recent publication of results from two randomized clinical trials, prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains a controversial issue

  • Summary: Our proposal to augment informed decision making (IDM) and shared decision making (SDM) approaches with libertarian paternalism strategies is intended to guide patients toward a better decision about testing while maintaining personal freedom of choice

  • There is a lack of conclusive evidence of the value of PSA screening in the reduction of mortality; two randomized controlled PSA screening trials, one in Europe and the other in the US, recently reported disparate results for the effect of PSA testing on prostate cancer mortality [2,3]

Read more

Summary

Discussion

Existing decision-making approaches Traditionally, medical practice has been a paternalistic system, with the health care provider telling the patient what to do and making the final decisions regarding screening or treatment. While the default decision of no PSA screening can be overridden, its presence would likely reduce the extent of testing This approach requires the use of decision aids and a consent form for PSA screening to document that a patient was informed before making a decision. The decision aids would be designed to provide an independent and evidence-based presentation of the positives and negatives of PSA screening, expectantly avoiding patient and physician bias and overcoming the failure of information transmission due to clinician time constraints. Our proposed application of key libertarian paternalism strategies to augment the current IDM and SDM decision-making approaches to PSA screening is intended to provide patients with the current state of knowledge on screening, and to protect them from making rash, uninformed decisions with the potential for significant harm while maintaining personal freedom of choice. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Background
16. Barry M
25. Arkes H
32. Barry M
Findings
40. Albertsen P
49. Gigerenzer G
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call