Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate Cancer Screening in the Midst of Controversy: Canadian Men’s Knowledge, Beliefs, Utilization, and Future Intentions

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite controversy about prostate cancer screening, administrative data show that the use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in Canada has increased. This study sought to determine awareness and knowledge of prostate cancer and screening, use to date, and future intentions to have a digital rectal examination (DRE) and PSA test among Canadian men aged 40 and over. Data were collected through a Canada-wide cross-sectional random digit dial telephone survey of 629 men. Awareness of DRE and PSA, use to date, and future intended use varied with age and education. Although only 9% of respondents had had PSA testing for screening, future intentions to undergo this test were higher than use to date. Knowledge of prostate cancer and screening controversies was low, and men received more information about PSA from the media than from doctors. Men would, therefore, benefit from age-and education-specific information regarding the factors to consider in making an informed choice about prostate cancer screening.

Résumé

En dépit des controverses entourant le dépistage du cancer de la prostate, les données administratives indiquent une augmentation de l’utilisation de l’antigène prostate-spécifique (PSA) pour le dépistage de ce cancer au Canada. Cette étude visait à déterminer le niveau de sensibilisation et de connaissances des Canadiens âgés de 40 ans et plus au sujet du cancer de la prostate et de son dépistage, du recours au dépistage et des intentions futures d’avoir un toucher rectal et un dépistage par PSA. Les données ont été recueillies à l’aide d’un sondage téléphonique au hasard, transversal et pancanadien, ayant porté sur 629 hommes. Le niveau de sensibilisation et de connaissances concernant le toucher rectal et le dépistage par PSA, le recours au dépistage et les intentions futures variaient beaucoup en fonction de l’âge et du niveau d’éducation. Bien que seulement 9 % des répondants aient déjà eu un dépistage par PSA, les intentions d’avoir ce dépistage sont apparues plus élevées que son utilisation. Les connaissances concernant les controverses au sujet du cancer de la prostate et de son dépistage étaient faibles et les hommes ont dit avoir reçu davantage d’informations au sujet de l’antigène prostate-spécifique par les médias que par leurs médecins. En conséquence, il apparaît indiqué dans l’intérêt de la population masculine de lui fournir une information adaptée à l’âge et au niveau d’éducation au sujet des facteurs à prendre en compte en vue de prendre une décision éclairée en matière de dépistage du cancer de la prostate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian Cancer Statistics 1995. Toronto, Ontario: NCIC, 1995;13.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Levy IG, Gibbons L, Collins JP, et al. Prostate cancer trends in Canada: Rising incidence or increased detection? Can Med Assoc J 1994;149:617–24.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Feightner JG. Screening for prostate cancer. In: The Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Exam. The Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. Ottawa, Ontario: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada (Cat. No. H21-117/1994E), 1994;811–823.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Green CJ, Hadorn D, Bassett K, Kazanjian A. Prostate Specific Antigen in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Vancouver: B.C. Office of Health Technology Assessment, (BCOHTA 93:6D), September 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Andriole GL. Serum prostate specific antigen: The most useful tumour marker. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1205–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bostwick DG. Prostate specific antigen: Current role in diagnostic pathology of prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:S31–S37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al. Measurement of prostate specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1156–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Catalona WJ. Screening for prostate cancer: Enthusiasm. Urology 1993;42:113–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dorr VJ, Williamson SK, Stephens RL. An evaluation of prostate specific antigen as a screening test for prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:2529–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brawer MK, Chetner MP, Beatie J, et al. Screening for prostate carcinoma with prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1992;147:841–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Babaian RJ, Dinney CP, Ramirez EI, et al. Diagnostic testing for prostate cancer detection: Less is best. Urology 1993;41:421–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Carter HB, Pearson JD, Metter EJ. Longitudinal evaluation of prostate specific antigen levels in men with and without prostate disease. JAMA 1992;267:2215–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Drago JR. Changes in PSA and early diagnosis of cancer of the prostate. In Vivo 1992;6:211–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MJ. A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. JAMA 1995;273:289–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hostetler RM, Mandel IG, Marshburn J. Prostate cancer screening. Med Clin North Am 1996;80:83–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mettlin C, Lee F, Drago J, et al. The American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project: Findings of the detection of early prostate cancer in 2425 men. Cancer 1991;67:2949–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Oesterling JE. Prostate specific antigen: A critical assessment of the most useful tumour marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1991;145:907–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Waterbor JW, Bueschen AJ. Prostate cancer screening (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1995;6:267–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Whitmore WF. Localised prostatic cancer: Management and detection issues. lancet 1994;343:1263–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Denis LJ. To screen or not to screen? Prostate 1992;Supplement 4:63–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chisholm GD. Prostate cancer screening: Accepting the consequences of PSA testing. Brit J Urol 1993;71:375–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chodak GW. Screening for prostate cancer in 1993: Is it appropriate or not? Semin Urol 1993;11:47–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fleming C, Wasson JH, Albertson PC, et al. A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1993;269:2650–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Johansson J, Adami H, Andersson S, et al. High 10 year survival rate in patients with early, untreated prostatic cancer. JAMA 1992;267:2191–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Krahn MD, Mahoney JE, Eckman MH, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: A decision analytic view. JAMA 1994;272:773–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Saskatchewan Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. The PSA Test in the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Saskatchewan Health Services Utilization and Research Commission Summary Report No 4, Saskatoon, February 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fradet Y, Meyer F (Eds). Recommendations from the Canadian Workshop on Screening for Prostate Cancer. Can J Oncol 1994;4S:xiv.

  28. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer. In: US Preventive Services Task Force, Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkin, 1996;119–34.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Saskatchewan Health Services Utilization and Research Commission. PSA testing down 23% since guidelines. A Closer Look. Summer 1996:6.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bostick RM, Sprafka JM, Virnig BA, Potter JD. Knowledge, attitudes, and personal practices regarding prevention and early detection of cancer. Prev Med 1993;22:65–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Brown ML, Potosky AL, Thompson GB, Kessler LG. The knowledge and use of screening tests for colorectal and prostate cancer: Data from the 1987 National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med 1990;19:562–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Diefenbach PN, Ganz PA, Pawlow AJ, Guthrie D. Screening by the prostate-specific antigen test: What do the patients know? J Cancer Educ 1996;11:39–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eisner E, Tobin E. What should we tell men about prostate cancer: Focus group research to help develop a communications strategy on prostate cancer for older men. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, October 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gelfand DE, Parzuchowski F, Cort M, Powell I. Digital rectal examinations and prostate cancer screening: Attitudes of African American men. Oncol Nurs Forum 1995;22:1253–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mainous III AG, Hagen MD. Public awareness of prostate cancer and the prostate specific antigen test. Cancer Pract 1994;2:217–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. McCoy CB, Anwyl RS, Metsch LR, et al. Prostate cancer in Florida: Knowledge, attitudes, practices, and beliefs. Cancer Pract 1995;3:88–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Urich VC, Cummings KM, Murphy GP. What do men know about prostate cancer and methods for detecting prostate cancer? Prog Clin Biol Res 1982;83:499–509.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bostick RM, Sprafka JM, Virnig BA, Potter JD. Predictors of cancer prevention attitudes and participation in cancer screening examinations. Prev Med 1994;23:816–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Price-Waterhouse. Canada Health Monitor, Survey #11, Toronto: July-August, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Denis LJ. Prostate cancer screening and prevention: “Realities and hope”. Urology 1995;46S:56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, Kramer BS, Cornett JE. Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial of the National Cancer Institute. J Urol 1994;152:1905–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Calle EE, Flanders D, Thun MJ, Martin LM. Demographic predictors of mammography and Pap smear screening in US women. Am J Public Health 1993;83:53–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fox SA, Klos DS, Worthen NJ, et al. Improving the adherence of urban women to mammography guidelines: Strategies for radiologists. Radiology 1990;174:203–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Harlan LC, Bernstein AB, Kessler LG. Cervical cancer screening: Who is not screened and why? Am J Public Health 1991;81:885–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lerman C, Rimer B, Trock B, et al. Factors associated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening. Prev Med 1990;19:279–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mah Z, Bryant H. Age as a factor in breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviour. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:2167–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Connor AM, Perrault DJ. Importance of physician’s role highlighted in survey of women’s breast screening practices. Can J Public Health 1995;86:42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rimer BK, Keintz MK, Kessler HB, et al. Why women resist screening mammography: Patient-related barriers. Radiology 1989;172:243–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Zapka JG, Hosmer D, Costanza ME, et al. Changes in mammography use: Economic, need, and service factors. Am J Public Health 1992;82:1345–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach, 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  51. O’Rourke D, Blair J. Improving random respondent selection in telephone surveys. J Market Res 1983;20:428–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kish L. Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Northrup D. Policy Survey: A Survey of Ontario Residents for the Addiction Research Foundation. Technical Documentation. Toronto: Institute for Social Research, York University, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bastani R, Marcus AC, Hollatz-Brown A. Screening mammography rates and barriers to use: A Los Angeles county survey. Prev Med 1991;20:350–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Denmark-Wahnefried W, Catoe KE, Paskett E, et al. Characteristics of men reporting for prostate cancer screening. Urology 1993;42:269–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Costanza ME, Hoople NE, Gaw VP, Stoddard AM. Cancer prevention practices and continuing education needs of primary care physicians. Am J Prev Med 1993;9:107–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Common processes of self-change in smoking, weight control, and psychological distress. In: Shiffman S, Wills T (Eds.), Coping and Substance Use. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1985;345–64.

    Google Scholar 

  58. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 Health Survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national survey. Med Care 1994;32:551–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Mickey RM, Worden JK, Vacek PM, et al. Comparability of telephone and household breast cancer screening surveys with differing response rates. Epidemiology 1994;5:462–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. NCI Breast Cancer Consortium. Screening mammography: A missed clinical opportunity? JAMA 1990;264:54–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Smith W, Chey T, Jalaludin B, et al. Increasing response rates in telephone surveys: A randomized trial. J Public Health Med 1995;17:33–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Special Surveys Group, Statistics Canada. National Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey of 1989: Microdata Documentation and User’s Guide. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Stein AD, Lederman RI, Shea S. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaire: Its reliability in a statewide sample. Am J Public Health 1993;83:1768–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Groves RM, Lyberg LE. An overview of nonre-sponse issues in telephone surveys. In: Groves RM, Biemer PP, Lyberg LE, et al. Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988;191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kristal AR, White E, Davis JR, et al. Effects of enhanced calling efforts on response rates, estimates of health behaviour, and costs in a telephone health survey using random-digit dialing. Public Health Rep 1993;108:372–79.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Panser LA, Chute CG, Girman CJ, et al. Effect of several recruitment strategies on response rates at baseline in a prospective cohort investigation: The Olmstead County Study of Urinary Symptoms and Health Status among Men. Ann Epidemiol 1994;4:321–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Panser LA, Chute CG, Guess HA, et al. The natural history of prostatism: The effects of non-response bias. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:1198–205.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Pavlik VN, Hyman DJ, Vallbona C, et al. Response rates to random digit dialing for recruiting participants to an onsite health study. Public Health Rep 1996;111:444–50.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Sonneholm S, Sørenson TIA, Jensen G, et al. Influence of fatness, intelligence, education, and sociodemographic factors on response rates in a health survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 1989;43:369–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Gordon NP, Hiatt RA, Lampert DI. Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:566–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hiatt RA, Perez-Stabel EJ, Quesenberry C Jr, et al. Agreement between self-reported early cancer detection practices and medical audits among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white health plan members in northern California. Prev Med 1995;24:278–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Montano DE, Phillips WR. Cancer screening by primary care physicians: A comparison of rates obtained from physician self-report, patient survey, and chart audit. Am J Public Health 1995;85:795–800.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Degnan D, Harris R, Ranney J, et al. Measuring the use of mammography: Two methods compared. Am J Public Health 1992;82:1386–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. King ES, Rimer BK, Trock B, et al. How valid are mammography self-reports? Am J Public Health 1990;80:1386–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. McKenna MT, Speers M, Mallin K, Warnecke R. Agreement between patient self-reports and medical records for Pap smear histories. Am J Prev Med 1992;8:287–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Tsubono Y, Fukao A, Hisamichi S. Accuracy of self-report for stomach cancer screening. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:977–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Zapka JG, Bigelow C, Hurley T. Mammography use among sociodemographically diverse women: The accuracy of self report. Am J Public Health 1996;86:1016–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario, North York, 2075 Bayview Avenue, G-106, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada

    Shawna L. Mercer MSc (research student of the National Cancer Institute of Canada), Vivek Goel MD, CM, MSc, FRCPC (recipient of a National Health Scholar Award from Health Canada) & Neill A. Iscoe MD, MSc, FRCPC

  2. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, North York, Canada

    Shawna L. Mercer MSc (research student of the National Cancer Institute of Canada), Vivek Goel MD, CM, MSc, FRCPC (recipient of a National Health Scholar Award from Health Canada) & Neill A. Iscoe MD, MSc, FRCPC

  3. Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Canada

    Shawna L. Mercer MSc (research student of the National Cancer Institute of Canada) & Vivek Goel MD, CM, MSc, FRCPC (recipient of a National Health Scholar Award from Health Canada)

  4. Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health Canada, Canada

    Isra G. Levy MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC

  5. University of Ottawa, Canada

    Isra G. Levy MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC

  6. Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation, National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto, Canada

    Fredrick D. Ashbury PhD & Donald C. Iverson PhD

  7. Department of Behavioural Science, University of Toronto, Canada

    Fredrick D. Ashbury PhD

  8. Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado, Canada

    Donald C. Iverson PhD

  9. Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, North York, Canada

    Vivek Goel MD, CM, MSc, FRCPC (recipient of a National Health Scholar Award from Health Canada) & Neill A. Iscoe MD, MSc, FRCPC

Authors
  1. Shawna L. Mercer MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vivek Goel MD, CM, MSc, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isra G. Levy MBBCh, MSc, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fredrick D. Ashbury PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Donald C. Iverson PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Neill A. Iscoe MD, MSc, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivek Goel MD, CM, MSc, FRCPC.

Additional information

supported with funds provided by the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Goel is a recipient of a National Health Scholar Award from Health Canada

This survey was supported by the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health Canada; the Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation, National Cancer Institute of Canada; the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario; and an educational grant from Abbott Laboratories.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mercer, S.L., Goel, V., Levy, I.G. et al. Prostate Cancer Screening in the Midst of Controversy: Canadian Men’s Knowledge, Beliefs, Utilization, and Future Intentions. Can J Public Health 88, 327–332 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403900

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403900

Search

Navigation