Abstract

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in men of average risk remains controversial. Patients’ ability to incorporate risk reduction data into their decision-making may depend on their numeracy. We assessed the impact of patients’ numeracy on their understanding of the risk reduction benefits of PSA screening. Men attending a general internal medicine clinic were invited to complete a survey. Four versions of the survey each included a three-item numeracy test and PSA risk reduction data, framed one of four ways: absolute (ARR) versus relative risk reduction (RRR), with or without baseline risk (BR). Respondents were asked to adjust their perceived risk of prostate-cancer mortality using the data presented. Accuracy of risk reduction was evaluated relative to how risk data were framed. Among a total of 200 respondents, a majority incorrectly answered one or more of the numeracy items. Overall accuracy of risk adjustment was only 20%. Accuracy varied with data framing: when presented with RRR, respondents were 13% accurate without BR and 31% accurate with BR; when presented with ARR, they were 0% accurate without BR and 35% accurate with BR. Including BR data significantly improved accuracy for both RRR (P = 0.03) and ARR groups (P < 0.01). Accuracy was significantly related to numeracy; numeracy scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 were associated with accuracy rates of six, five, nine, and 36 percent, respectively (P < 0.01). Overall, numeracy was significantly associated with the accuracy of interpreting quantitative benefits of PSA screening. Alternative methods of communicating risk may facilitate shared decision-making in the use of PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer.

Highlights

  • Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in American men and will account for about 27,000 deaths in 2017, the third leading cause of cancer mortality [1]

  • These statistics may take the form of relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, odds ratios, or “number needed to treat” [6, 7]

  • The inclusion age range was selected to represent a population of men who would be likely to have heard of prostate cancer as a condition and might be considering prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for the purpose of early detection of prostate cancer

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in American men and will account for about 27,000 deaths in 2017, the third leading cause of cancer mortality [1]. Impact of numeracy in prostate cancer screening a preference-sensitive decision, the American College of Physicians, American Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and American Urological Association have advocated a shared decision-making model between patients and clinicians to meet patients’ goals of care [2,3,4,5]. Patient education materials and in-person counseling about PSA screening often cite results from clinical trials to explain the potential effects of screening on cancer mortality. These statistics may take the form of relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, odds ratios, or “number needed to treat” [6, 7]. Patients’ ability to interpret probability and risk data may depend on their numeracy, or facility with quantitative concepts [6, 8, 9]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
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