Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomised controlled trial

Objectives: Efforts to educate men about the controversy surrounding prostate cancer screening are well intended but rarely evaluated rigorously. We evaluated an evidence-based (EB) booklet for men designed to promote informed decision-making. We also determined whether men's preference for involvement in decision-making ("passive", "collaborative" or "active") modified its impact. Setting and methods: Men aged 40-70 years were recruited from the practices of 13 local general practitioners (GPs) in Sydney, Australia. They completed a self-administered questionnaire before seeing their GP, who, according to pre-randomised codes, distributed either our EB booklet or. conventional information. Post-test questionnaires were mailed to men three days later. Of the 248 eligible men recruited, 214 (86% response rate) returned post-test questionnaires. Knowledge of evidence and of risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer, attitudes, interest in screening for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), worry and decisional conflict were the main outcome measures. Results: Compared with those receiving conventional information, men receiving the EB booklet had significantly improved knowledge (50% of items correct, 95% CI 46-53%; vs 45% correct, 95% Cl 42-48%) (p = 0.048) and lower levels of decisional conflict (mean 21.6, 95% CI 20.7-22.5; vs mean 24.31 95% CI 23.4-25.2) (p<0.001). Interest in PSA screening was significantly reduced in both groups at post-test (p<0.001). Men preferring a "passive" approach to decision-making gained as much from our EB booklet as those with "active" or "collaborative" preferences. Conclusions: Our findings show the benefits of providing evidence-based information to men about PSA screening. Our EB booklet facilitated informed choice, even among "passive" decision-makers.