Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary characteristics of studies included in review

From: The effects of shared decision-making compared to usual care for prostate cancer screening decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

First author, publication year, country, design & period of conduct Healthcare context, setting and facilities, n Target population Total randomised, N Intervention & randomised patients, N Comparator(s) & randomised patients, N Age: mean (SD) & target (range), years Race or ethnicity, % Ever screened, % Family history of PC, % Married, % Education: >HS, % Employment in full- or part-time, % Participating HCP & specialty, n
White Black Hispanic
Wilkes, 2013 [41]
USA
RCT, cluster
May 2007 to Dec 2008
General medicine
Primary care networks academic-medical-centre affiliated, 2
Staff model health maintenance organisations, 2
Medical group practice network, 1
Men with no serious comorbidity (including any known cancer) and English speakers. Physicians consented to participate in educational activities and to help recruit patients 55 waiting areas, 712 patients, 120 physicians 1) MD-Ed + A: interactive web-based physician educational program (30 min) with information about PC and screening + web-based patient activation (30 min) + access to CDC brochure; N = 19 waiting areas, 113 patients, 36 physicians
2) MD-Ed: interactive web-based physician educational program (30 min) with information about PC and screening + access to CDC brochure; N = 19 waiting areas, 246 patients, 41 physicians
CDC educational brochures; N = 17 waiting areas, 353 patients, 43 physicians 63.2 (7.0) (55–65) 74.5 7.1 7.1 82.7 18.4 80.0 89.5 42.5 Internal and family medicine physicians with ≥4–40 years’ experience since clinical training completed, 120
Landrey, 2013 [42]
USA
RCT, parallel
Oct 2009 to Aug 2010
General medicine
General internal medicine practices University-Hospital affiliated, 2
Men scheduled to have an annual health maintenance exam between October 2009 and August 2010 303 Flyer about PC and PSA screening with patient encouragement to talk with providers; N = 145 No flyer; N = 158 62.0 (nr) (50–74) 56.5 5.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 75.6 nr nr Internal medicine physicians, 44
Krist, 2007 [43, 44] (Woolf, 2005)
USA
RCT, parallel
Jun 2002 to Jun 2004
General medicine
Suburban family practice centre, 1
Men with a scheduled health maintenance examination 497 1) Web-based informational DA about PC and PSA screening; N = 226
2) Pamphlet, paper version of web-based DA (with same information); N = 196
No pre-visit educational material and no DA during discussions with physicians; N = 75 56.6 (4.0) (50–70) 90.8 2.6 0.0 68.5 0.0 nr 84.1 nr Family physicians, 29: 13 faculty, 8 second-year residents, 8 third-year residents
Gatellari, 2003 [45]
AUS
RCT, parallel Period, nr
General medicine
Urban general practices, 13
Men sufficiently fluent in English, not diagnosed with PC, from 13 GPs in urban Sydney 248 32-page (3085-word) evidence-based informational booklet about PC and PSA screening in quantitative data form with maximised readability with Flesch–Kincaid grade level = 7.3; N = 126 968-word pamphlet by the Australian government with information to advise men of the agreed policy about PSA screening, in non-numerical data form with Flesch–Kincaid grade level = 11.2; N = 122 54 (8.6) (40–70) nr nr nr 36.3 nr 71.5 30.4 57.5 Family physicians, 13
  1. PC Prostate Cancer, GP General Practitioners, PSA Prostate Specific Antigen, CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DA Decision Aid, nr not reported, MD-Ed + A Physician Education and patient Activation, MD-Ed Physician Education, HS High School, HCP Healthcare Professionals