Low-Literacy Interventions to Promote Discussion of Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Refers to erratum:
Erratum
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
March 2008 (Vol. 34, Issue 3, Page 270) Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (29 KB)
Background
Professional organizations recommend that physicians discuss prostate cancer with patients to make individual screening decisions. However, few studies have tested strategies to encourage such discussions, particularly among high-risk populations. We examined the effects of two low-literacy interventions on the frequency of prostate cancer discussion and screening.
Design
Randomized, blinded, controlled trial with concealed allocation.
Setting/Participants
Inner-city primary care clinic, serving a predominately African-American population. Participants were men aged 45–70 with no history of prostate cancer, presenting for a regular appointment.
Interventions
While waiting to see their physician, patients received a patient education handout on prostate cancer screening (PtEd), a handout simply encouraging patients to talk to their doctor about prostate cancer (Cue), or a control handout. The interventions did not advocate for or against screening.
Measures
Patient-reported discussion of prostate cancer with the physician and chart reviews determine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test orders and performance of digital rectal examination (DRE). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed. Data were collected in 2003, and analyses were completed in 2006.
Results
Most of the 250 subjects (90.4%) were African American and 78.8% read below the ninth grade level. Overall, 48.4% reported discussing prostate cancer during the appointment. Compared to the control group (37.3%), discussions were significantly more common in the Cue group (58.0%, aOR=2.39 [1.26–4.52]), as well as in the PtEd group (50.0%, aOR=1.92 [1.01–3.65]). When prostate cancer was discussed, patients in the intervention groups more commonly initiated the conversation (47.6% PtEd and 40.0% Cue, vs 9.7% control, p<0.01 for each comparison to control). Compared to the control group (2.4%), PSA test orders increased in the PtEd group (14.1%, aOR=7.62 [1.62–35.83]) and in the Cue group (12.3%, aOR=5.86 [1.24–27.81]). Documentation of DRE did not change significantly (4.7% PtEd, 6.2% Cue, and 6.0% control).
Conclusions
Two simple low-literacy interventions significantly increased discussion of prostate cancer and PSA test orders but not performance of DRE. Both interventions were effective in empowering low-literacy patients to initiate conversations about prostate cancer with their physician.
aDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
bDepartment of Biostatistics, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia
cChronic Disease Control and Prevention Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Sunil Kripalani, MD, MSc, Emory University School of Medicine, 49 Jesse Hill Jr Dr SE, Atlanta, GA 30303.
ABSTRACT