[What do men between 50 and 70 know about the effectiveness, the benefits, and the risks of prostate cancer screening?]. / Conocen los varones de 50-70 años la efectividad, los beneficios y los riesgos del cribado del cáncer de próstata?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the understanding of the population on prostate cancer screening. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Primary care teams in the province of Barcelona, Spain, from april to september 2005. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTEXT: Men between 50 and 70 years old without prostate symptoms and seen in the clinics of 12 primary care teams. METHOD: Systematic sample. VARIABLES: age, marital status, educational level, and self-perceived health status. Appraisal of knowledge through a 14-question questionnaire referring to the key ideas, previously defined by a group of experts, requisite before deciding on prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: N=221. Mean age, 59.9 (SD, 5.9); educational level, primary or lower: 63.4%; 89.1% (95% CI, 84.4-92.6) did not have sufficient knowledge about prostate cancer screening. In the questions on what PSA is and what it is for, over 50% said they did not know; 63.3% recognised that prostate cancer was a highly prevalent illness; 84.6% replied that early detection of prostate cancer avoids deaths; 49.8% did not know whether the doctor had doubts on this question; and 38.9% thought he didn't. There were no differences in knowledge for any of the variables studied. CONCLUSIONS: Although prostate cancer screening is widely known about, the information of the population is scant and often wrong. Existing scientific uncertainty on the use of screening is the aspect that is least known by users.

[Comprension of a document informing citizens as to the benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening. A semistructured interview-based study]. / Comprensión de un documento que informa a los ciudadanos sobre los beneficios y los riesgos del cribado para el cáncer de próstata. Estudio mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas.

BACKGROUND: The development of tools to aid in prostate cancer screening-related decision-making is a challenge for healthcare professionals and institutions. This study is aimed at evaluating citizen comprehension of a document prepared by experts informing as to prostate cancer screening benefits and risks. METHODS: Phenomenological qualitative study conducted in Barcelona (November 2004-January 2005). The data was gathered by means of seven interviews with males within the 50-70 age range of different educational levels attended in primary care. A descriptive-narrative theme-based categorical content analysis was made of the narrative discourse. RESULTS: This document provides knowledge regarding the aforementioned aspects, although the males possessing a lower level of education point out words and concepts found difficult to understand. In all of the educational strata, the screening-related doubts entertained are due to the prostate-specific antigen not having been precisely stated, the concept most difficult to understand being that of early cancer detection possibly not being beneficial. They are of the opinion that this document is useful for what they consider as being a decision which must be made by the patient with the collaboration of the professionals. Those interviewed are satisfied with the decision made following the information furnished. CONCLUSIONS: The educational level, the locus of control and health beliefs-attitudes condition the comprehension-assimilation of the information. Citizen participation in the preparation of tools to aid in decision-making processes concerning prostate cancer screening affords the possibility of attaining more useful documents. Further research is necessary on the effects this type of information has on citizens.

Comprensión de un documento que informa a los ciudadanos sobre los beneficios y los riesgos del cribado para el cáncer de próstata: estudio mediante entrevistas semiestructuradas (*) / Comprension of a document informing citizens as to the benefits and risks of prostate cancer screening. A semistructured interview-based study

Fundamento: El desarrollo de herramientas de ayuda a la decisión sobre el cribado del cáncer de próstata, constituye un reto para los profesionales- instituciones sanitarias. El objetivo del estudio es valorar la comprensión por los ciudadanos de un documento elaborado por expertos que informa sobre beneficios y riesgos del cribado del cáncer de próstata. Métodos: Estudio cualitativo fenomenológico, realizado en Barcelona (noviembre 2004-enero 2005). Los datos se obtuvieron mediante siete entrevistas con hombres de 50-70 años y diferentes niveles educativos atendidos en atención primaria. Se realizó un análisis de contenido de categorías temáticas descriptivo-interpretativo del corpus narrativo. Resultados: El documento aporta conocimientos sobre los conceptos expuestos, si bien los hombres de menor nivel educativo señalan palabras y conceptos de difícil comprensión. En todos los estratos educativos las dudas al cribado son provocadas por la falta de precisión del antígeno prostático específico, y el concepto más difícil de entender es que la detección precoz del cáncer de próstata pueda no ser beneficiosa. Opinan que el documento es útil para la decisión que creen corresponde al paciente con la colaboración de los profesionales. Los informantes están satisfechos con la decisión adoptada tras la información recibida. Conclusiones: El nivel educativo, el locus de control y las creencias- actitudes condicionan la comprensión-asunción de la información. La participación de ciudadanos en la elaboración de instrumentos de ayuda a la decisión sobre el cribado del cáncer de próstata permite conseguir documentos más útiles

Background: The development of tools to aid in prostate cancer screening-related decision-making is a challenge for healthcare professionals and institutions. This study is aimed at evaluating citizen comprehension of a document prepared by experts informing as to prostate cancer screening benefits and risks. Methods: Phenomenological qualitative study conducted in Barcelona (November 2004-January 2005). The data was gathered by means of seven interviews with males within the 50-70 age range of different educational levels attended in primary care. A descriptive-narrative themebased categorical content analysis was made of the narrative discourse. Results: This document provides knowledge regarding the aforementioned aspects, although the males possessing a lower level of education point out words and concepts found difficult to understand. In all of the educational strata, the screening-related doubts entertained are due to the prostate-specific antigen not having been precisely stated, the concept most difficult to understand being that of early cancer detection possibly not being beneficial. They are of the opinion that this document is useful for what they consider as being a decision which must be made by the patient with the collaboration of the professionals. Those interviewed are satisfied with the decision made following the information furnished. Conclusions: The educational level, the locus of control and health beliefs-attitudes condition the comprehension-assimilation of the information. Citizen participation in the preparation of tools to aid in decision- making processes concerning prostate cancer screening affords the possibility of attaining more useful documents. Further research is necessary on the effects this type of information has on citizens