Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction?Objective: To disseminate the findings of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of screening for prostate cancer.
Methods: Background research was undertaken to inform the presentation of the findings of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of prostate screening to key health professionals and members of the public. This included a content analysis of recent media coverage of prostate cancer and screening issues, and focus group interviews with general practitioners, men aged over 45 and their female partners. Two short publications were prepared which summarised the review evidence for health professionals and for men considering having a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. The publication for men was distributed to general practices and consumer health information services.
Results: The background research identified several aspects of popular knowledge and belief which it was felt important to address when presenting the review findings. In particular, screening for prostate cancer was explicitly contrasted with screening for breast cancer because men often saw the absence of a national prostate cancer screening programme as an example of the NHS treating men unfairly. The appropriateness of case finding as well as screening was explicitly questioned because general practitioners said that they felt pressures to refer men for PSA testing. A press launch secured favourable coverage in the national media, expressed demand for the two summary publications has been high, and most feedback has been positive.
Discussion: This initiative achieved its process objectives of reaching a large number of relevant decision-makers. Questions need to be asked about the costs and benefits of approaches to gathering background intelligence before embarking on dissemination activity.
Methods: Background research was undertaken to inform the presentation of the findings of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of prostate screening to key health professionals and members of the public. This included a content analysis of recent media coverage of prostate cancer and screening issues, and focus group interviews with general practitioners, men aged over 45 and their female partners. Two short publications were prepared which summarised the review evidence for health professionals and for men considering having a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. The publication for men was distributed to general practices and consumer health information services.
Results: The background research identified several aspects of popular knowledge and belief which it was felt important to address when presenting the review findings. In particular, screening for prostate cancer was explicitly contrasted with screening for breast cancer because men often saw the absence of a national prostate cancer screening programme as an example of the NHS treating men unfairly. The appropriateness of case finding as well as screening was explicitly questioned because general practitioners said that they felt pressures to refer men for PSA testing. A press launch secured favourable coverage in the national media, expressed demand for the two summary publications has been high, and most feedback has been positive.
Discussion: This initiative achieved its process objectives of reaching a large number of relevant decision-makers. Questions need to be asked about the costs and benefits of approaches to gathering background intelligence before embarking on dissemination activity.