The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a patient-educational approach to shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with preoffice visit assessment and 2-week follow-up. SETTING: University-based family practice center. PATIENTS: Men aged 45 through 70 years with no history of prostate cancer or treatment for prostate disease (N = 160). Two patients were unavailable for follow-up. INTERVENTION: Twenty-minute educational videotape on advantages and disadvantages of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A measure of patients' core knowledge of prostate cancer developed for this study, reported preferences for PSA testing, and ratings of the videotape. RESULTS: Patients' core knowledge at baseline was poor. At 2-week follow-up, subjects undergoing videotape intervention showed a 78% improvement in the number of knowledge questions answered correctly (P = .001), and knowledge increased about mortality due to early-stage prostate cancer, PSA screening performance, treatment-related complications, and disadvantages of screening. No overall change was observed for control subjects. At follow-up, 48 (62%) of 78 intervention patients planned to have the PSA test compared with 64 (80%) of 80 control patients (18.5% absolute reduction; 95% confidence interval, 4.6%-32.4%; P = .009). Intervention subjects rated favorably the amount of information provided and the clarity, balance, and length of the videotape and would recommend the videotape to others. CONCLUSIONS: Patient education regarding the potential benefits and harms of early detection of prostate cancer can lead to more informed decision making. Incorporating the PSA videotape into the periodic health examination for asymptomatic men aged 50 years and older is recommended.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Incorporating Patients' Preferences into Medical Decisions
Kassirer, J. P. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406303302611 · Cited by 415
Cited by
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Joosten, E. A. G., DeFuentes-Merillas, L., de Weert, G. H., Sensky, T., van der Staak, C. P. F., & de Jong, C. A. J. (2008) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000126073 · Cited by 1,135
A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence
Trevena, L. J., (Hons), H. M. D. B. (. M., Barratt, A., Butow, P., & Caldwell, P. (2006) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x · Cited by 329
Durand, M.-A., Witt, J., Joseph-Williams, N., Newcombe, R. G., Politi, M. C., Sivell, S., & Elwyn, G. (2015) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.12.009 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Volk, R. J.
- Venue
- Archives of Family Medicine
- Publisher
- CLOCKSS Archive
- Published
- 1999-07-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 333-340
- ISSN
- 1063-3987 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2168949549
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 35.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archfami.8.4.333
- The paper
- Volk, R. J. (1999). A Randomized Controlled Trial of Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening. Archives of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.8.4.333
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.