Title

Deliberative democracy and cancer screeening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening

Document Type

Article

Publication details

Thomas, R, Glasziou, P, Rychetnik, L, Mackenzie, G, Gardiner, R & Doust, J 2014, 'Deliberative democracy and cancer screeening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening', British Medical Journal, vol. 4, no. 1.

Article available on Open Access

Peer Reviewed

Peer-Reviewed

Abstract

Objective:

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening.

Design:

Random allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment.

Setting:

Participants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings.

Participants:

Twenty-six men aged 50–70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Intervention:

The control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions.

Main outcome and measures:

Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer.

Results:

Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=−0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001).

Conclusions:

Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.