Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Brief ReportBrief Report

Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Initiation and Shared Decision-Making: Findings from the 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys

Jun Li, Helen Ding, Thomas B. Richards, Iman Martin, Sarah Kobrin and Pamela M. Marcus
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine July 2018, 31 (4) 658-662; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2018.04.170448
Jun Li
From Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA (JL, TBR); DB Consulting Group INC, Silver spring, MD (HD); Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (IM); Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (SK, PMM).
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Ding
From Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA (JL, TBR); DB Consulting Group INC, Silver spring, MD (HD); Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (IM); Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (SK, PMM).
MD, MSPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas B. Richards
From Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA (JL, TBR); DB Consulting Group INC, Silver spring, MD (HD); Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (IM); Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (SK, PMM).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Iman Martin
From Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA (JL, TBR); DB Consulting Group INC, Silver spring, MD (HD); Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (IM); Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (SK, PMM).
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah Kobrin
From Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA (JL, TBR); DB Consulting Group INC, Silver spring, MD (HD); Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (IM); Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (SK, PMM).
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pamela M. Marcus
From Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA (JL, TBR); DB Consulting Group INC, Silver spring, MD (HD); Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (IM); Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, (SK, PMM).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purposes: Despite recommendations against prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, about one-fourth of men age ≥40 years received PSA tests in 2015. This study aimed to answer 3 questions for men who had a PSA test in the past year: (1) What percentage of these men received the test first suggested by physicians? (2) What factors were associated with physician-initiated PSA testing (PIPT) versus patient/someone else-initiated testing? (3) What percentage of patients ever had shared decision-making when tests were initiated by physicians?

Methods: We analyzed the 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey data. We calculated age-standardized prevalence of PIPT for both years. For 2015, we used logistic regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios for PIPT. We also calculated the prevalence of ever discussing both advantages and disadvantages.

Results: The age-standardized prevalence of PIPT was significantly higher in 2015 (84.9%) than in 2000 (72.3%). In 2015, nearly 90% of PSA screenings for men aged ≥70 years were suggested by physicians. PIPT was positively associated with 2 or more comorbid conditions and number of patient visits to the doctor. Less than one-third of men reported they had ever participated in a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing.

Conclusions: The majority of men who had PSA testing in the past year reported that their physicians were the first to suggest testing, including men aged ≥70 years. Our study also points to the challenges and needs in conducting shared decision-making before PSA testing in clinical practice.

  • Decision Making
  • Early Detection of Cancer
  • Logistic Regression
  • Prevalence
  • Prostate Cancer
  • Prostate-Specific Antigen

Despite recommendations against prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, approximately one-fourth of men age ≥40 years received PSA tests in 2015.1 Many organizations, including the US Preventive Task Force (USPSTF), recommend that health care providers and their patients use shared decision-making (SDM), including discussion of benefits and harms of the test, before ordering it.1 This study aimed to answer 3 questions for men who had a PSA test in the past year: (1) What percentage of these men received the test first suggested by physicians? (2) What factors were associated with physician-initiated PSA testing (PIPT) versus patient/someone else-initiated testing? (3) What percentage of patients ever had SDM when tests were initiated by physicians?

Methods

We analyzed 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Survey data. The overall National Health Interview Survey adult sample response rates were 72.1% (2000) and 55.2% (2015). Our analyses included male respondents aged ≥40 years who reported PSA testing as part of a routine examination in the past year and excluded men with PSA tests for other purposes or prostate cancer history. Our analyses included 1646 men from the year 2000 and 2024 men from 2015. We calculated age-standardized prevalence of PIPT for both years. For 2015, we used logistic regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios for PIPT. We also calculated the prevalence of ever discussing both advantages and disadvantages. We used SUDAAN 10 software (RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC) to account for the sampling design.

Results

The age-standardized prevalence of PIPT was significantly higher in 2015 (84.9%) than in 2000 (72.3%) (P < .01). In 2015, among men aged ≥70 years who received a PSA screening test, nearly 90% reported that it was first suggested by a physician (Table 1). PIPT was positively associated with 2 or more comorbid conditions and number of patient visits to the doctor, but inversely associated with prostate cancer family history (data not shown). Up to one-third of men who were screened reported that they had ever participated in a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing (Table 2); SDM was slightly higher with PIPT (32% vs 25% for initiation by the patient/someone else), but not significantly so (P = .06).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Age-Standardized* Prevalence of Physician-Initiated Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing by Sociodemographic and Screening-Related Factors Among Men Aged 40 Years and Older Who Had the Test in the Past Year, National Health Interview Survey, 2000 and 2015

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Prevalence of Ever Discussed Both Advantages and Disadvantages of Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Men Aged 40 Years and Older Who Had the Test Within the Past Year, National Health Interview Survey, 2015

Discussion

In 2000 and 2015, more than 70% of men who underwent PSA testing in the past year reported that their physicians were the first to suggest testing. Conflicting recommendations regarding PSA testing might have contributed to that high prevalence.1 Other factors might include physician beliefs about PSA screening effectiveness, perceived community standard of care, and malpractice concerns.2 Medicare reimbursement for annual PSA testing might contribute to the willingness of physicians to propose or support testing.

PIPT is positively associated with 2 or more comorbid conditions and the number of patient encounters with clinicians. More patient encounters may increase a clinician's opportunity to suggest the test. This study suggests that men with prostate cancer family history are more likely to first suggest PSA testing. In 2017, the US Preventive Task Force released draft recommendations, instead of against screening among men of all ages, calling for individualized decision making after discussion of potential benefits and harms of PSA testing among men aged 55 years to 69 years.3 In our study, more than two-thirds of men who were screened reported that they had never discussed advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with physicians, a finding consistent with previous reports.4,5 These results point to the challenges and needs in conducting SDM in clinical practice.

Limitations of our study include self-reported data (which may be less accurate than medical records), results that may not be representative of nonrespondents, and lack of details on the relationship to the patient when “someone else requested the test.”

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: none.

  • Conflict of interest: none declared.

  • Disclosure: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/31/4/658.full.

  • Received for publication November 27, 2017.
  • Revision received February 1, 2018.
  • Accepted for publication February 13, 2018.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Berkowitz Z,
    2. Li J,
    3. Richards TB,
    4. Marcus PM
    . Patterns of prostate-specific antigen test use for prostate cancer screening in the United States, 2005–2015. Am J Prev Med 2017;53:909–913.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Purvis Cooper C,
    2. Merritt TL,
    3. Ross LE,
    4. John LV,
    5. Jorgensen CM
    . To screen or not to screen, when clinical guidelines disagree: primary care physicians' use of the PSA test. Prev Med 2004;38:182–191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bibbins-Domingo K,
    2. Grossman DC,
    3. Curry SJ
    . The US Preventive Services Task Force 2017 draft recommendation statement on screening for prostate cancer: an invitation to review and comment. JAMA 2017;317:1949–1950.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Han PK,
    2. Kobrin S,
    3. Breen N,
    4. et al
    . National evidence on the use of shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening. Ann Fam Med 2013;11:306–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Li J,
    2. Berkowitz Z,
    3. Richards TB,
    4. Richardson LC
    . Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing with men older than 70 years. J Am Board Fam Med 2013;26:401–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 31 (4)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 31, Issue 4
July-August 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Initiation and Shared Decision-Making: Findings from the 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
10 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Initiation and Shared Decision-Making: Findings from the 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys
Jun Li, Helen Ding, Thomas B. Richards, Iman Martin, Sarah Kobrin, Pamela M. Marcus
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2018, 31 (4) 658-662; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.04.170448

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Initiation and Shared Decision-Making: Findings from the 2000 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys
Jun Li, Helen Ding, Thomas B. Richards, Iman Martin, Sarah Kobrin, Pamela M. Marcus
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2018, 31 (4) 658-662; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2018.04.170448
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Multilevel Small Area Estimation of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Test in the United States by Age Group: 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
  • The Potpourri of Family Medicine, in Sickness and in Health
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Association of Social Needs with Diabetes Outcomes in an Older Population
  • Insurance Instability Among Community-Based Health Center Patients with Diabetes Post-Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion
  • Factors Influencing Changing Scopes of Practice Among Contemporary Graduates of the Nation’s Largest Family Medicine Residency
Show more Brief Reports

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Decision Making
  • Early Detection of Cancer
  • Logistic Regression
  • Prevalence
  • Prostate Cancer
  • Prostate-Specific Antigen

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire