↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0717-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pia Kirkegaard, Adrian Edwards, Trine Laura Overgaard Nielsen, Torben Falck Ørntoft, Karina Dalsgaard Sørensen, Michael Borre, Flemming Bro

Abstract

Most health authorities do not recommend screening for prostate cancer with PSA tests in asymptomatic patients who are not at increased risk. However, opportunistic screening for prostate cancer is still wanted by many patients and it is widely used in primary care clinics, with potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Better tools for risk assessment have been called for, to better target such opportunistic screening. Our aim was to explore perceptions about prostate cancer risk and subsequent opportunistic screening among patients who were not at increased risk of prostate cancer after a first PSA test plus a genetic lifetime risk assessment. We undertook semi-structured patient interviews with recording and verbatim transcription of interviews. Data were analysed thematically. Three themes were identified: uncertainty of the nature of prostate cancer; perceived benefits of testing; and conflicting public health recommendations. Prostate cancer was spoken of as an inescapable risk in older age. The aphorism "you die with it, not from it" was prominent in the interviews but patients focused on the benefits of testing now rather than the future risks associated with treatment relating to potential overdiagnosis. Many expressed frustration with perceived mixed messages about early detection of cancer, in which on one side men feel that they are encouraged to seek medical testing to act responsibly regarding the most common cancer disease in men, and on the other side they are asked to refrain from opportunistic testing for prostate cancer. Taken together, personal risks of prostate cancer were perceived as high in spite of a normal PSA test and a genetic lifetime risk assessment showing no increased risk. Patients saw prostate cancer risk as high and increasing with age. They focused on the perceived benefit of early detection using PSA testing. It was also commonly acknowledged that most cases are indolent causing no symptoms and not shortening life expectancy. There was a frustration with mixed messages about the benefit of early detection and risk of overdiagnosis. These men's genetic lifetime risk assessment showing no increased risk did not appear to influence current intentions to get PSA testing in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Engineering 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,954
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,519
of 344,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#31
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.