Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background/aim

The effects of printed educational material on cancer screening in women (Pap test and mammography) are well documented and confirmed by several studies. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of similar printed educational material on prostate cancer screening by PSA and DRE.

Material and methods

Thousand five hundred men aged between 50 and 86 years of age, who attended our institutions for various medical conditions except prostate-related conditions, were randomly assigned to two study groups. Men in the informed group, received an educational leaflet with simple, general information on prostate cancer screening methods given by their physician along with treatment and other regular recommendations, while men in the non-informed group, were only informed by their physician in the examination room during an interview.

Results

After 24 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of DRE screening. The percentages of men who were actually screened by DRE were 4 and 5% in the informed and non-informed groups, respectively, while the difference in the percentages of PSA screening was of statistical significance, with 31% of men screened in the non-informed group as compared to 93% of men screened in the informational leaflet group.

Conclusions

A single, one-shift distribution of printed educational material on prostate cancer screening, changed their attitude regarding prostate cancer screening only in favour of PSA testing, while did not manage to change the DRE acceptance behavior. However, since the combination of the two tests is more sensitive for diagnosis than either one alone, there is a need of introducing intervention strategies, in the efforts of ameliorating the prostate cancer screening behavior.

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. Silva JS, Zawilski AJ (1992) The health care professional’s workstation: its functional components and user impact. In: Ball MJ, Collen MF (eds) Aspects of the computer-based patient record. Springer, New York, pp 103–123

    Google Scholar 

  2. No author listed (1996) Guide to clinical preventive services, 2nd edn. Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 119–34

  3. Boling W, Laufman L, Lynch GR, Weinberg AD (2005) Increasing mammography screening through inpatient education. J Cancer Educ 20(4):247–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Webster P, Austoker J (2007) Does the english breast screening programme’s information leaflet improve women’s knowledge about mammography screening? A before and after questionnaire survey. J Public Health (Oxf) 29(2):173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Franceschi S (2005) The IARC commitment to cancer prevention: the example of papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res 166:277–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Osterling JE (1996) Early detection of prostate cancer. Decreasing the mortality rate. Minn Med 79:46–9

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kramer BS, Brown ML, Prorok PC, Potosky AL, Gohagan JK (1993) Prostate cancer screening: what we know and what we need to know. Ann Intern Med 119:914–923

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Woolf HS (1995) Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen: an examination of evidence. N Engl J Med 333:1401–1405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Krist A, Woolf S, Johnson R, Kerns W (2007) Patient education on prostate cancer screening and involvement in decision making. Ann Fam Med 5(2):112–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti VJ (2003) A randomized controlled trial comparing Internet and video to facilitate patient education for men considering the prostate specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med 18(10):781–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Auvinen A, Calais Da Silva F, Denis LJ, Hugosson J, Schroeder F (1996) The European Randomised Study for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). International Cooperation and Preliminary Data. Parthenon, New York, pp 167–172

  12. No author listed (1999) The International Prostate Screening Trial Evaluation Group. Rationale for randomised trials of prostate cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 35:262–271

    Google Scholar 

  13. de Koning HJ, Auvinen A, Berenguer-Sanchez A et al (2002) Large-scale randomized prostate cancer screening trials; program performance in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. Int J Cancer 97:237–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. de Koning HJ, Liem MK, Baan CA, Boer R, Schroder FH, Alexander FE, ERSPC (2002) Prostate cancer mortality reduction by screening: power and time frame with complete enrollment in the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial. Int J Cancer 98:268–273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Prorok PC, Andriole GL, Bresalier RS, Buys SS, Chia D, Crawford ED, Fogel R, Gelmann EP, Gilbert F, Hasson MA, Hayes RB, Johnson CC, Mandel JS, Oberman A, O’Brien B, Oken MM, Rafla S, Reding D, Rutt W, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi L, Gohagan JK (2000) Design of the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. Control Clin Trials 21:273S–309S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harris R, Lohr KN (2002) Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:917–929

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Graif T, Yu X, Loeb S (2006) Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Program and abstracts of the American Urological Association 2006 Annual Meeting; May 20–25, Atlanta, Georgia, Abstract 476

    Google Scholar 

  18. Oliffe J (2006) Being screened for prostate cancer: a simple blood test or a commitment to treatment? Cancer Nurs 2006 04/

  19. Deliveliotis C, Alivizatos G, Karayiannis A, Kontothanasis D, Makrychoritis K, Lysiotis P, Dimopoulos MA (1995) The value of prostatic specific antigen in the early diagnosis of prostatic cancer: a Greek view. Br J Urol 75(5):637–641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Stamatiou K, Alevizos A, Agapitos E, Sofras F (2006) Incidence of impalpable carcinoma of the prostate and of non-malignant and precarcinomatous lesions in Greek male population: an autopsy study. Prostate;2006:10; [Epub ahead of print]

  21. No author listed. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality “The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services 2005: Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.” 2005

  22. Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention (2000) Position paper. Recommendations on cancer screening in European Union. Eur J Cancer 36:1473–1478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Holund B (1980) Latent prostatic cancer in a consecutive autopsy series. Scand J Urol Nephrol 14:29–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Haggerty J, Tudiver F, Brown JB, Herbert C, Ciampi A, Guibert R (2005) Patients’ anxiety and expectations. How they influence family physicians’ decisions to order cancer screening tests. Can Fam Physician 51(12):1659

    Google Scholar 

  25. Constantinou J, Feneley MR (2006) PSA testing: an evolving relationship with prostate cancer screening. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 9:6–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bowersox J (1992) American Cancer Society adopts new prostate cancer screening guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1856–1857

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mettlin C, Jones GW, Averette H, Gusberg SB, Murphy GP (1993) Defining and updating the American Cancer Society guidelines for the cancer related checkup: prostate and endometrial cancer. Cancer J Clin 43:42–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Weinrich SP, Wienrich MC, Boyd MD, Atkinson C (1998) The impact of prostate cancer knowledge on cancer screening. Oncol Nurs Forum 25:527–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Abbott R, Taylor DK, Barber K (1998) A comparison of prostate knowledge of African American and Caucasian men: changes from prescreening baseline to postintervention. Cancer J 4:175

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Weinrich SP, Boyd MD, Weinrich M, Greene F, Reynolds WA Jr, Metlin C (1998) Increasing prostate cancer screening in African American men with peer-educator and client-navigator interventions. J Cancer Educ 13(4):213–219

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Davison BJ, Kirk P (1999) Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns 37(3):255–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis D (1999) Computer-based approaches to patient education: a review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc 6:272–282

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hammond CS, Wasson JH et al (2001) A frequently used patient and physician-directed educational intervention does nothing to improve primary care of prostate conditions. Urology 58(6):875–881

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Weinrich SP, Seger R, Miller BL, Davis C, Kim S, Wheeler C, Weinrich M (2004) Knowledge of the limitations associated with prostate cancer screening among low-income men. Cancer Nurs 27(6):442–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lockman AR (2001) Does the manner in which information about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is presented affect screening rates? Jour Fam Pract 50(10):898

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti VJ (2003) A randomized controlled trial comparing Internet and video to facilitate patient education for men considering the prostate specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med 18(10):781–787

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tingen M, Weinrich S, Heydt D, Boyd M, Weinrich M (1998) Perceived benefits: a predictor of participation in prostate cancer screening. Cancer Nurs 21:349–357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Den Eeden S, Enger S, Caan B (2003) Predictors of having a PSA test (abstract). Am J Epidemiol 157:abstract 368

  39. Steenland K Rodriguez C, Mondul A, Calle E, Thun M (2004) Prostate cancer incidence and survival in relation to education. Cancer Causes Control 15:939–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kripalani S, Sharma J, Justice E, Justice J, Spiker C, Laufman LE, Jacobson TA, Weinberg AD (2005) Prostate cancer screening in a low-literacy population: does informed decision making occur? Cancer C Control 12(2):116–117

    Google Scholar 

  41. Myers RE, Hyslop T, Wolf TA, Burgh D, Kunkel EJ, Oyesanmi OA, Chodak GJ (2000) African–American men and intention to adhere to recommended follow-up for an abnormal prostate cancer early detection examination result. Urology 55(5):716–720

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Schapira MM, VanRuiswyk J (2000) The effect of an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid on the use of prostate cancer screening tests. J Fam Pract 49(5):418–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Flood AB, Wennberg JE et al (1996) The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate patient outcomes research team. J Gen Intern Med 11(6):342

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kripalani S, Sharma J, Justice E, Justice J, Spiker C, Laufman LE, Price M, Weinberg AD (2007) Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 33(2):83–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Philip J, Dutta Roy S, Viswanathan P (2006) Digital rectal examination is a barrier to population-based prostate cancer screening. Urology 67(3):655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mistry K, Cable G (2003) Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract 16(2):95–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pruthi RS, Tornehl C, Gaston K, Lee K, Moore D, Carson CC, Wallen EM (2006) Impact of race, age, income, and residence on prostate cancer knowledge, screening behavior, and health maintenance in siblings of patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 50:64–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Outpatient Department, General Hospital of Thebes, Thebes, Greece

    Konstantinos Stamatiou, Georgios Ilias & Vasilissa Karanasiou

  2. Urology Department, Medical School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Andreas Skolarikos

  3. Urology Department, Medical School, University of Crete, Iraklio, Greece

    Ioannis Heretis, Vaios Papadimitriou & Frank Sofras

  4. Health Center of Vyronas, Athens, Greece

    Konstantinos Stamatiou, Alevizos Alevizos & Anargiros Mariolis

  5. 2 Salepoula str, 18536, Piraeus, Greece

    Konstantinos Stamatiou

Authors
  1. Konstantinos Stamatiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Skolarikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ioannis Heretis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vaios Papadimitriou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alevizos Alevizos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Georgios Ilias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vasilissa Karanasiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anargiros Mariolis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Frank Sofras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos Stamatiou.

Appendix

Appendix

  1. 1.

    Which of the following groups are candidate for prostate cancer screening?

    1. a.

      All men between 50–80 years of age

    2. b.

      Men <80 years of age who have a life expectancy of at least ten years

    3. c.

      Men > 40 years of age with a family history of prostate cancer

    4. d.

      All the above

  2. 2.

    Which of the following parameters is interfering with prostate cancer treatment?

    1. a.

      The person’s age

    2. b.

      The person’s health status

    3. c.

      The type of cancer.

    4. d.

      All the above

  3. 3.

    Which of the following issues is true?

    1. a.

      Checking the prostate by means of a digital rectal examination is the simplest, but also the least effective method when screening for prostate cancer

    2. b.

      Checking the prostate by means of a prostatic specific antigen measure is most effective method when screening for prostate cancer but it can lead to suspicious results for reasons other than cancer.

    3. c.

      Combining a PSA test and digital rectal examination is a more effective means of screening than PSA measurement alone. The probability that a man with a normal PSA and a normal rectal examination has prostate cancer is less than 1%.

    4. d.

      All the above

  4. 4.

    Prostate cancer screening in otherwise healthy men has to be performed

    1. a.

      Bimonthly

    2. b.

      Semesterly

    3. c.

      Yearly

    4. d.

      Every five years

  5. 5.

    The benefits of screening and treating prostate cancer are not yet clearly established.

    1. a)

      True; b) False

  6. 6.

    Both detection and treatment of prostate cancer is associated with a high likelihood of causing some significant adverse effects.

    1. a)

      True; b) False

  7. 7.

    Would you be willing to undergo multiple prostate biopsy procedures to make sure that you not have cancer?

    1. a)

      Yes; b) No

  8. 8.

    Would you be willing to accept a poorer quality of the rest of your life as part of the price for possibly living longer?

    1. a)

      Yes; b) No

  9. 9

    Have you improve your self-assessed knowledge concerning prostate cancer during the last 24 months.

    1. a)

      Yes; b) No

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stamatiou, K., Skolarikos, A., Heretis, I. et al. Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening?. World J Urol 26, 365–373 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0258-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0258-z

Κeywords

Search

Navigation