Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 216

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.

The Impact of Informed Consent on Patient Interest in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening

Andrew M. D. Wolf·1996·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because of the many uncertainties surrounding screening for prostate cancer, authorities recommend that patients be involved in the screening decision. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of informed consent on patient interest in undergoing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. METHODS: Men 50 years or older with no prior PSA testing and no history of prostate cancer presenting to 1 of 4 university-affiliated primary care practices were eligible for enrollment. Patients were randomized to receive either a scripted informational intervention simulating an informed consent presentation (intervention group, n = 103) or a single sentence about the PSA (control group, n = 102). The main outcome measure was patient interest in undergoing PSA screening measured on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Patients who received the informational intervention were significantly less interested in undergoing PSA screening than controls (mean difference in interest, 0.8 on 5-point scale, P < .001). Informed patients were much less likely to indicate high interest in screening (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.60; P < .001). In a multivariate model, family history of prostate cancer was associated with increased interest and advancing age with decreased interest in PSA screening, but the informational intervention remained the strongest predictor of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Among primary care patients of predominantly lower socioeconomic status, those who received informed consent were significantly less interested in PSA screening than those who did not. For physicians who offer the PSA as a screening test, this finding highlights the importance of apprising patients of the associated benefits, burdens, and uncertainties and allowing them to participate in the screening decision.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1001/archinte.156.12.1333

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 216

Metadata

Authors
Wolf, A. M. D.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association
Published
1996-06-24
Volume
156
Issue
12
Pages
1333-1333
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2067371209
Cited by
216
References
0
FWCI
19.46
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: The Impact of Informed Consent on Patient Interest in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.156.12.1333
The paper
Wolf, A. M. D. (1996). The Impact of Informed Consent on Patient Interest in Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.156.12.1333

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.