MP63-02 MEDIA COVERAGE ANALYSIS OF THE UPDATED USPSTF AND AUA PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING GUIDELINES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening III1 Apr 2014MP63-02 MEDIA COVERAGE ANALYSIS OF THE UPDATED USPSTF AND AUA PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING GUIDELINES Kevin Koo and Ronald Yap Kevin KooKevin Koo More articles by this author and Ronald YapRonald Yap More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1939AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Recent changes to prostate cancer screening guidelines by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Urological Association (AUA) gained national media attention. This study investigates coverage of 3 news events: preliminary USPSTF guidelines (October, 2011); final USPSTF guidelines (May, 2012); and updated AUA guidelines (May, 2013). METHODS The LexisNexis and ProQuest newspaper databases were queried for English-language articles containing the words "prostate" and "PSA" published in U.S. newspapers within 30 days of each news event. Opinion pieces, duplicated entries, and articles not primarily about the guidelines were excluded. A content analysis was performed by coding articles using a standardized abstraction instrument for the following themes: consequences of screening; specific studies or evidence; accuracy of guideline description; costs; financial impact; and references to current AUA guidelines. Headline bias and the types of quoted sources were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata. RESULTS Of 92 unique articles retrieved, 45 met inclusion criteria. 24 articles were about the 2011 USPSTF preliminary guidelines, 17 about the 2012 final guidelines, and 4 about the 2013 AUA guidelines. Mean number of sources per article was 3.6 (SD=1.8). The most frequently interviewed sources were physicians (89% of articles), followed by USPSTF members (49%), non-profit leaders (47%), and patients or patient advocates (31%). 36 articles (76%) quoted at least one urologist. Over 80% of articles discussed potential adverse consequences of screening, but fewer than half accurately summarized the new guidelines or the scientific evidence behind them. Significantly more articles in 2012 versus 2011 mentioned test-related costs, cited urologists' financial gains from screening, or had headlines opposing testing (p<0.05). Of articles that cited the AUA's initial opposition to USPSTF recommendations, only 29% described AUA guidelines in any form. CONCLUSIONS Both USPSTF announcements on prostate cancer screening were more extensively covered by media outlets than the updated AUA guidelines. While urologists were commonly interviewed as sources, articles frequently emphasized the negative aspects of screening, rather than reviewing nuances of the guidelines or current evidence. This study adds to our understanding of the media's influence in shaping patient perception and public discourse on men's health issues. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e709 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Kevin Koo More articles by this author Ronald Yap More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...