Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH)

Infektiöser Prozess in der Prostata

To browse Academia. Skip to main content. You're using an out-of-date version of Internet Explorer. Log In Sign Up. Elisabeth Kunkel. BPH-Screening-Tests Riggio. Mark Capkin. BPH-Screening-Tests a, James R. BPH-Screening-Tests a, Jeffrey M.

Riggio BPH-Screening-Tests, Mark Capkin b, Clarence H. At the visit, BPH-Screening-Tests participants were randomized to either an enhanced intervention EI or a standard intervention SI Decision counseling group. An endpoint survey was administered. Shared decision making Risk assessment Survey data, BPH-Screening-Tests audio-recordings, and chart audit data were used to assess study outcomes. Practice implications: Nurses trained in decision counseling can facilitate shared decision BPH-Screening-Tests about BPH-Screening-Tests.

All rights BPH-Screening-Tests. Introduction screening may produce a modest reduction in mortality [7]. Both trials concluded, however, that mass screening with PSA results in In BPH-Screening-Tests, there were an estimatednew cases of prostate substantial over-diagnosis and related morbidity.

Prostate cancer is often BPH-Screening-Tests through prostate view [8]. In practice, however, most BPH-Screening-Tests of BPH-Screening-Tests on mortality and survival; BPH-Screening-Tests carries a men have little or no discussion about prostate cancer screening substantial risk for over-diagnosis; and there are serious compli- with a primary care provider [12].

Given this state of affairs, there cations BPH-Screening-Tests with treatment for early-stage disease [2—5]. A is a pressing need for methods to facilitate informed BPH-Screening-Tests shared recent report from a large randomized trial conducted in the decision making about prostate cancer screening use [13].

Decision United States found that prostate cancer screening does not save aids e. Myers jefferson. Myers et al. As with making and actual screening use secondary outcomes. Methods discuss prostate cancer screening. Study setting, participants, and procedures 2. Study outcomes and hypotheses The DCT was conducted between and with patients Primary study outcomes were prostate cancer screening at two primary care practice sites in Philadelphia, PA. Secondary outcomes included included in the study were males who were 50—69 years of age, had the completeness BPH-Screening-Tests informed decision making and prostate cancer no history of prostate cancer or benign prostatic BPH-Screening-Tests BPHscreening utilization.

Prior to patient recruitment to the study, the research team asked physicians at study sites to complete and return a self- 2. Study measures administered survey questionnaire BPH-Screening-Tests to assess provider BPH-Screening-Tests and perceptions related to prostate cancer BPH-Screening-Tests 2. Physician survey see Appendix. An electronic appointment scheduling system and The physician survey administered at BPH-Screening-Tests beginning of the medical records were used to BPH-Screening-Tests potentially eligible BPH-Screening-Tests with study assessed provider background characteristics and knowl- a scheduled visit for non-acute care.

These men were mailed a edge that prostate screening is controversial 2 items, see study invitation letter, along with instructions for opting out of the Appendix. We also assessed provider orientation to BPH-Screening-Tests with study.

Using factor analysis, we determined Preventive Health Model, or PHM [29—31], survey BPH-Screening-Tests assessed that the items formed three scales related to prostate cancer BPH-Screening-Tests sociodemographic background and perceptions related screening: awareness of BPH-Screening-Tests cancer screening pros and cons 3 BPH-Screening-Tests prostate cancer and screening see Appendix. Finally, we assessed provider educator who obtained written consent.

Using a system of sealed preferred role in shared decision making [35]. BPH-Screening-Tests surveys Group or BPH-Screening-Tests Standard Intervention SI Group, and delivered BPH-Screening-Tests Participant sociodemographic characteristics were measured corresponding interventions.

All patients then proceeded to an on the baseline survey. Participant knowledge was measured on encounter with their physician. A subset of physician—patient baseline and endpoint surveys with 10 items which corresponded encounters was BPH-Screening-Tests selected for audio-recording. Finally, an to information included in BPH-Screening-Tests informational booklet see endpoint telephone survey was administered about 7 days after Appendix.

Study interventions Appendix [36]. This SI component was used to control for the personal elsewhere see Appendix [37]. Four single items were included to assess social screening [33,34]. Physician—patient encounter audio-recording As mentioned earlier, we audio-recorded and coded a subset of patient—physician encounters to BPH-Screening-Tests informed decision making IDM about prostate cancer screening. Staff training A decision counseling training program for study nurse educators consisted of four face-to-face sessions that addressed research study design, data collection, audio-recording methods, BPH-Screening-Tests theory and practice of decision counseling, and role-play.

A training program for research assistants was BPH-Screening-Tests implemented. Summary of BPH-Screening-Tests Counseling Trial participant accrual.

The implementation of study procedures BPH-Screening-Tests routine- ly reviewed in BPH-Screening-Tests staff meetings. Statistical analyses survey to This sample size provided discussion to other men. Table 1 summarizes was analyzed via logistic regression. Because informed decision making was assessed for a cancer screening pros and cons.

All analyses respectively. The degree by study group. The data show that the two groups were well of clustering by physician was negligible BPH-Screening-Tests all analyses, and balanced on all the measured variables. Overall, we found therefore we present analyses that do not account for clustering. Results prostate BPH-Screening-Tests, and had a low level of concern about screening. Further, men included in BPH-Screening-Tests study tended to BPH-Screening-Tests prostate Fig.

In 30 cancer is curable, screening is an important and easy thing to do, months, we screened patients, determined were and their physician and family members supported screening. After controlling for study site, participant Male 14 Discussion and conclusion Equally by patient and physician 11 This increase may be the result of education beyond high school. Nurse educator review of the brochure in the BPH-Screening-Tests counseling session is likely to have boosted knowledge BPH-Screening-Tests the EI 3.

At endpoint, men in both study BPH-Screening-Tests men in both study groups. For BPH-Screening-Tests, the 10 knowledge items assessed. In a study by Taylor et al. Secondary outcomes: informed decision making IDM and included print information BPH-Screening-Tests a videotape on prostate cancer and screening the pros and cons of screening. In our study, information about screening was provided permission to audio-record physician—patient encounters. Thus, by the time the endpoint survey was BPH-Screening-Tests EI Group men, a nurse educator reviewed the BPH-Screening-Tests at the administered, most participants would have resolved the matter of visit, and subsequently helped clarify participant screening whether or not to screen and any attendant screening concerns.

It is possible some feelings of uncertainty could BPH-Screening-Tests In terms BPH-Screening-Tests IDM, we found that IDM rates during the physician— been raised as a result of the review process. However, such patient encounter were low in both study groups, a phenomenon concerns would most likely have been ameliorated following that is consistent with prior reports [41].

Mean S. Increased patient knowledge and IDM may also lead to 2 12 Further research is needed on how to 3 8 Practice implications Total 60 Providing oriented intervention on IDM change related to prostate cancer effective mediated decision support on a large scale may have screening. Further research is needed to determine how the salutary effects on patient adherence and satisfaction. One approach may be to train nurses to deliver Acknowledgements decision counseling to patients and provide a summary of the BPH-Screening-Tests for use in the physician—patient encounter.

The authors declare a more substantial impact on IDM. We BPH-Screening-Tests to extend our BPH-Screening-Tests reported in this study may be subject to some bias, since we sincere thanks to Dr. Heidi Swan for her approached for audio-recordings. In addition, refusal rates BPH-Screening-Tests extremely helpful efforts in manuscript organization and editing.

If IDM were lower among patients who chose not to allow audio- recording, the magnitude of change reported here would be Appendix A. Supplementary data underestimated. Screening use was lower among EI Group men as compared to SI Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in Group men, a difference BPH-Screening-Tests was modest and not statistically the online version, at doi Cancer Facts and Figures Atlanta: American Cancer Society BPH-Screening-Tests Observed differential BPH-Screening-Tests of decision aids on [2] Albertsen PC.

Screening for prostate BPH-Screening-Tests is neither appropriate nor cost- prostate cancer screening may be due to a number of factors, effective. Urol BPH-Screening-Tests North Am ;23 November — Prostate cancer: current evidence weighs against population screening.

Screening for prostate cancer. CA physician characteristics, we discovered that the reduction in Cancer J Clin ;59 July — BPH-Screening-Tests Urol ; October — N Engl J time discussing screening-related concerns.

Further investigation Med ; March —9.