Objectives: Screening for prostate cancer in healthy asymptomatic men using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is controversial due to conflicting recommendations from and a lack of strong evidence regarding the benefit of population-based screening. In Canada and internationally, there is variability in how family physicians (FPs) approach PSA testing in asymptomatic men. The purpose of our study was to explore how family FPs approach discussions with their male patients around PSA testing in Manitoba, Canada.
Design: Qualitative descriptive study.
Setting and participants: High-ordering and median-ordering FPs were invited to participate in an interview. In addition to exploring practice behaviours around PSA testing, participants were asked to elaborate on their typical discussion with asymptomatic men who request a PSA test or other tests and procedures that they do not feel are clinically warranted. Data were analysed inductively using a constant-comparison approach.
Results: There were important variations between high-ordering and median-ordering FP's approaches to discussing PSA testing. Strategies to facilitate conversations were more frequently identified by median-ordering physicians and often included methods to facilitate assessing their patient's understanding and values. In addition to decision aids, median-ordering FPs used motivational interviewing to tailor a discussion, organised their practice structure and workflow habits in a way that enhanced patient-provider discussions and leveraged 'new' evidence and other aids to guide conversations with men.
Conclusion: We found that high-ordering FPs tended to use the PSA test for screening asymptomatic men with limited shared decision-making. Median-ordering FPs used conversational strategies that emphasised uncertainty of benefit and potential risk and did not present the test as a recommendation.
Keywords: oncology; primary health care; prostate disease; qualitative research.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.