Knowledge and practices regarding prostate cancer screening in Spanish men: The importance of personal and clinical characteristics (PROSHADE study).

INTRODUCTION: Patients' decisions on prostate cancer (PCa) opportunistic screening may vary. This study aimed to assess how demographic and health-related characteristics may influence knowledge and decisions regarding PCa screening. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among men aged over 40, randomly sampled from the Spanish population, 2022. The survey underwent development and content validation using a modified Delphi method and was administered via telephone. Binomial logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between respondents' characteristics and participants' knowledge and practices concerning PCa and the PSA test. RESULTS: Out of 1,334 men, 1,067 (80%) respondents were interviewed with a mean age of 58.6 years (sd 11.9). Most had secondary or university studies (787, 73.8%) and 61 (5.7%) self-reported their health status as bad or very bad. Most of the respondents (1,018, 95.4%) had knowledge regarding PCa with nearly 70% expressed significant concern about its potential development (720, 70.8%), particularly among those under 64 years (p = 0.001). Out of 847 respondents, 573 (67.7%) reported that they have knowledge regarding the PSA test: 374 (65.4%) reported receiving information from a clinicians, 324 (86.6%) information about the benefits of the test and 189 (49,5%) about its risks, with differences based on educational background. In a multivariable analysis (adjusted for age, educational level and previous prostate problems), respondents with higher levels of education were more likely to have higher knowledge regarding the PSA test (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.24-2.50, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the patients reported to have knowledge regarding PCa, half of the interviewed men reported knowledge about PSA test. Differences in knowledge prostate cancer screening and undesirable consequences highlight the need to develop and provide tailored information for patients.

[Independent evaluation of the COVID-19 crisis. Lessons to be learned]. / Evaluación independiente de la crisis de la COVID-19. Lecciones por aprender.

The independent evaluation report on the performance of the National Health System in the face of the COVID crisis is rigorous, well thought out and well executed. It has benefited from the participation of numerous experts and institutions. The altruistic effort of the coordinators and hundreds of experts, professionals and citizens is noteworthy, which does not justify the asymmetry between "everything for free" when it comes to shared intelligence, and market prices when it comes to commissioning reports from consultancy firms that are sometimes not worth the cost. The valuable work has suffered from unexplained delays and delayed dissemination that do not bode well for whether there is interest in learning from the pandemic or leaving it behind and forgetting it. Indeed, valuable reports provided by the public administration itself (listed in the report) have still not been made public, despite the request of the coordinators. However, the mere fact that the evaluation has been carried out under the influence and pressure of scientists and professionals should encourage the actions of civil society organisations. Advocacy is needed to ensure that public administrations see collective intelligence as an invaluable resource to be nurtured and stimulated. Regular accountability of executive powers at all levels needs to be pursued vigorously. Many sensible proposals to improve healthcare have been ignored, but we learned that achievements are made with perseverance. It is not an option, it is part of the core business of public health.

Barriers and facilitators of shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in primary care: A systematic review.

Objective: To identify barriers and facilitators of the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA testing in primary care. Design: Systematic review of articles. Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria: Original studies published in English or Spanish that assessed the barriers to and facilitators of SDM before PSA testing in primary care were included. No time restrictions were applied. Data extraction and synthesis: Two review authors screened the titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion, and assessed the quality of the included studies. A thematic synthesis of the results were performed and developed a framework. Quality assessment of the studies was based on three checklists: STROBE for quantitative cross-sectional studies, GUIDED for intervention studies and SRQR for qualitative studies. Results: The search returned 431 articles, of which we included 13: five cross-sectional studies, two intervention studies, five qualitative studies and one mixed methods study. The identified barriers included lack of time (healthcare professionals), lack of knowledge (healthcare professionals and patients), and preestablished beliefs (patients). The identified facilitators included decision-making training for professionals, education for patients and healthcare professionals, and dissemination of information. Conclusions: SDM implementation in primary care seems to be a recent field. Many of the barriers identified are modifiable, and the facilitators can be leveraged to strengthen the implementation of SDM.