PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10094271

Prostate cancer screening in primary care.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the actual frequency with which men have prostate screening in primary care settings, nor are the determinants of screening understood. METHODS: We examined the records of 50 consecutive primary care office visits by men aged 50 or older. Men were asked to complete a brief questionnaire outlining their previous use of prostate screening services and the factors that influenced screening. RESULTS: Screening in the previous year with digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) was reported by 46% and 30% of respondents, respectively. Most respondents (86%) had heard of prostate screening and most (78%) believed it was effective. The only factor predictive of screening with DRE in multivariate analysis was a doctor's discussion of screening (odds ratio, 4.8). Two factors were predictive of PSA screening--knowing someone who had prostate cancer (odds ratio, 12.8) and advancing age (odds ratio [per year], 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Many men are not having annual prostate screening. Men who were older, who reported knowing someone with prostate cancer, and whose doctors discussed screening, were more likely to have been screened in the past year.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F Carter, E Graham, N Pal, E Gonzalez, R Roetzheim. 1999. Prostate cancer screening in primary care.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-199903000-00008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Implementing emergency research requiring exception from informed consent, community consultation, and public disclosure.

Conducting emergency research in the out-of-hospital and emergency department setting is a challenge because of the inability of patients to provide informed consent in many situations. Federal guidelines allowing research under an exception from informed consent for emergency research have been established (21 CRF 50.24). Community consultation and public disclosure, 2 required components of obtaining this exception, are seen by many as a barrier to resuscitation research. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of the exception from informed consent for emergency research and summarize our methods recently used to successfully complete community consultation and public disclosure for a trial evaluating 2 devices used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area.

Attitude to Health↗