Patterns of prostate-specific antigen testing by remoteness of residence and socio-economic status: An Australian population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Describes the variation in prostate cancer testing by the remoteness of residence and socio-economic status groups in Australia. DESIGN: A national population-based descriptive study using Medicare data extracted by the Department of Health (formerly the Department of Health and Ageing). SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: All men, with a Medicare-reimbursed prostate-specific antigen test conducted in Australia between 2002 and 2017, were included. We focused on "screening and case finding" tests (Medicare Benefits Schedule item number 66655) from 1 April 2005 to 31 December 2009, to describe testing differences in subgroups. Groups were categorised into State and Territory, socio-economic status and region of residence. A negative binomial regression model was fitted to measure the incidence rate ratios of those who had a screening prostate-specific antigen test by group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age-standardised testing rates and incidence rate ratios. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2017, 11 588 775 screening prostate-specific antigen tests were reimbursed by the Department of Human Services. During 2005-2009, 52% of all Australian men, aged 40 years and over, had a screening test. The incidence rate ratios differed by State and Territory. Men aged 40 years and over, living in very remote areas, were 43% less likely to have had a screening test than residents of major cities. Prostate-specific antigen testing rates fell in all age groups between 2007 and 2009 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The prostate-specific antigen testing behaviour differs between community groups in Australia. Men were less likely to have had a screening prostate-specific antigen test the farther they lived from the major cities. This highlights the need for a more targeted approach to achieve an equitable and evidence-based prostate cancer care across all sectors of the community.

Citation indices for social media articles in urology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of publications on urological participation in social media (SoMe) by virtue of citations in the urological and non-urological literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 15 March 2016, a PubMed search was undertaken using the names of the major SoMe platforms in current use and associated with the field of urology. The search term 'urolog*' was used to specifically capture articles that could be associated with 'urology', 'urologist' or 'urological'. Exclusion criteria for analysis included non-English language articles, articles published for the first time online in any form after 1 March 2015, articles irrelevant to the topic of SoMe, and letters of correspondence. Included articles were then searched in Google Scholar and citations analysed to determine if citations were from the urological literature or non-urological literature. Citations from non-urological journals were considered to be as such even if authored by urologists and on the subject of urology and SoMe. RESULTS: Prior to exclusions as defined in the methods, our PubMed search yielded 232 articles of which 17 were non-English language and 66 had been published after 1 March 2015. Allowing for 12 months after the most recent articles were published, we found that the mean number of total citations in any journal was 20.8. There were more citations in journals not specific to urology, with 8.3 citations in urological journals, compared to 12.6 citations in non-urological journals. CONCLUSION: Urological SoMe journal articles are highly cited, particularly in the non-urological literature. It is likely that the magnitude of citations has positively contributed to the impact factors of the almost all journals publishing these manuscripts.