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