See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Prostate cancer screening is controversial because of uncertainty about its benefits and risks. The aim of this survey was to reveal preferences of men concerning prostate cancer screening and to test the effect of an informative video on these preferences.
Methods: A stated preferences questionnaire was sent by e-mail to men aged 50-75 with no history of prostate cancer. Half of them were randomly assigned to view an informative video. A discrete choice model was established to reveal men’s preferences for six prostate cancer screening characteristics: mortality by prostate cancer, number of false positive and false negative results, number of overdiagnosis, out-of-pocket costs and recommended frequency.
Results: 1024 men representative of the French general population filled in the entire questionnaire. Each attribute gave the expected sign except for overdiagnosis. The video seemed to increase the intention to abstain from prostate cancer screening.
Conclusions: The participants attached greater importance to a decrease in the number of false negatives and a reduction in prostate cancer mortality than to other risks such as the number of false positives and overdiagnosis. Further research is needed to help men make an informed choice regarding screening.
Keywords
Prostate cancer screening, health education material, discrete choice
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 07 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 05 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 04 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Nov, 2019
Version 2
Posted 04 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 02 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 11 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 10 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 05 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 06 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 24 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 22 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 18 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 21 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 20 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 08 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Health Services Research.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 07 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 05 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 04 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Nov, 2019
Version 2
Posted 04 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 02 Apr, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 11 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 11 Mar, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 10 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 05 Mar, 2020
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 01 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 01 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 06 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 24 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 10 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 22 Dec, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 18 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 13 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 29 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 21 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 20 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 08 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Health Services Research.
Background: Prostate cancer screening is controversial because of uncertainty about its benefits and risks. The aim of this survey was to reveal preferences of men concerning prostate cancer screening and to test the effect of an informative video on these preferences.
Methods: A stated preferences questionnaire was sent by e-mail to men aged 50-75 with no history of prostate cancer. Half of them were randomly assigned to view an informative video. A discrete choice model was established to reveal men’s preferences for six prostate cancer screening characteristics: mortality by prostate cancer, number of false positive and false negative results, number of overdiagnosis, out-of-pocket costs and recommended frequency.
Results: 1024 men representative of the French general population filled in the entire questionnaire. Each attribute gave the expected sign except for overdiagnosis. The video seemed to increase the intention to abstain from prostate cancer screening.
Conclusions: The participants attached greater importance to a decrease in the number of false negatives and a reduction in prostate cancer mortality than to other risks such as the number of false positives and overdiagnosis. Further research is needed to help men make an informed choice regarding screening.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...