Clinician and health service interventions to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions generated by healthcare: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise the available evidence on the effects of interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of healthcare. DESIGN: Systematic review and structured synthesis. SEARCH SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to 3 May 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled or uncontrolled before-after studies that assessed interventions primarily designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the GHG emissions of healthcare initiated by clinicians or healthcare services within any setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was GHG emissions. Secondary outcomes were financial costs, effectiveness, harms, patient-relevant outcomes, engagement and acceptability. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Paired authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified checklist for observational studies and the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data could not be pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, so we synthesised results in a structured summary of intervention effects with vote counting based on direction of effect. RESULTS: 21 observational studies were included. Interventions targeted delivery of anaesthesia (12 of 21), waste/recycling (5 of 21), unnecessary test requests (3 of 21) and energy (1 of 21). The primary intervention type was clinician education. Most (20 of 21) studies were judged at unclear or high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most studies reported effect estimates favouring the intervention (GHG emissions 17 of 18, costs 13 of 15, effectiveness 18 of 20, harms 1 of 1 and staff acceptability 1 of 1 studies), but the evidence is very uncertain for all outcomes (downgraded predominantly for observational study design and risk of bias). No studies reported patient-relevant outcomes other than death or engagement with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces GHG emissions may reduce GHG emissions and costs, reduce anaesthesia use, waste and unnecessary testing, be acceptable to staff and have little to no effect on energy use or unintended harms, but the evidence is very uncertain. Rigorous studies that measure GHG emissions using gold-standard life cycle assessment are needed as well as studies in more diverse areas of healthcare. It is also important that future interventions to reduce GHG emissions evaluate the effect on beneficial and harmful patient outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022309428.

RECITAL: a non-inferiority randomised control trial evaluating a virtual fracture clinic compared with in-person care for people with simple fractures (study protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Most simple undisplaced fractures can be managed without surgery by immobilising the limb with a splint, prescribing medication for pain, and providing advice and early rehabilitation. Recent systematic reviews based on retrospective observational studies have reported that virtual fracture clinics can deliver follow-up care that is safe and cost-effective. However, no randomised controlled trial has investigated if a virtual fracture clinic can provide non-inferior physical function outcomes compared with an in-person clinic for patients with simple fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 312 participants will be recruited from 2 metropolitan hospitals located in Sydney, Australia. Adult patients will be eligible if they have an acute simple fracture that can be managed with a removable splint and is deemed appropriate for follow-up at either the virtual or in-person fracture clinic by an orthopaedic doctor. Patients will not be eligible if they have a complex fracture that requires a cast or surgery. Eligible participants will be randomised to receive their follow-up care either at the virtual or the in-person fracture clinic. Participants at the virtual fracture clinic will be reviewed within 5 days of receiving a referral through video calls with a physiotherapist. Participants at the in-person fracture clinic will be reviewed by an orthopaedic doctor within 7-10 days of receiving a referral. The primary outcome will be the patient's function measured using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, patient-reported experiences, pain, health cost, healthcare utilisation, medication use, adverse events, emergency department representations and surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (RPAH Zone) (X23-0200 and 2023/ETH01038). The trial results will be submitted for publication in a reputable international journal and will be presented at professional conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000934640.

Fictitious cases as a methodology to discuss sensitive health topics in focus groups.

PURPOSE: It can be challenging to research aspects of people's health behaviour, attitudes, and emotions due to the sensitive nature of these topics. We aimed to develop a novel methodology for discussing sensitive health topics, and explore the effectiveness in focus groups using prostate cancer and screening as an example. METHOD: We developed a fictitious case and employed it as a projective technique in focus groups on prostate cancer and screening. The participants were men and their partners who lived in Denmark. RESULTS: The technique encouraged emotional and cognitive openness in focus group discussions about the risk of prostate cancer, the benefits and harms of screening, and decision-making about screening. It appeared that using the fictitious case allowed the participants to personally distance themselves from the topic, project emotions onto the case, and thereby openly talk about their emotions. CONCLUSION: This article presents a methodological contribution to communication about sensitive topics in focus groups, using prostate cancer screening as an example. Further refinement of the methodology is needed to enable participants to transfer improvements in knowledge to their own decision about screening.

Changes in prostate specific antigen (PSA) "screening" patterns by geographic region and socio-economic status in Australia: Analysis of medicare data in 50-69 year old men.

BACKGROUND: While it is known that national PSA testing rates have decreased in Australia since 2007, it is not known whether these trends are consistent by broad geographical areas, nor whether previously reported area-specific differences have remained in more recent time periods. METHODS: Population-based cohort study of Australian men (n = 2793,882) aged 50-69 who received at least one PSA test (Medicare Benefit Schedule item number 66655) during 2002-2018. Outcome measures included age-standardised participation rate, annual percentage change using JoinPoint regression and indirectly standardised participation rate ratio using multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: During 2005-09, two thirds (68%) of Australian men aged 50-69 had at least one PSA test, reducing to about half (48%) during 2014-18. In both periods, testing rates were highest among men living in major cities, men aged 50-59 years, and among men living in the most advantaged areas. Nationally, the Australian PSA testing rate increased by 9.2% per year between 2002 and 2007, but then decreased by 5.0% per year to 2018. This pattern was generally consistent across States and Territories, and socio-economic areas, however the magnitude of the trends was less pronounced in remote and very remote areas. CONCLUSIONS: The decreasing trends are consistent with a greater awareness of the current guidelines for clinical practice in Australia, which recommend a PSA test be done only with the informed consent of individual men who understand the potential benefits and risks. However, given there remain substantial geographical disparities in prostate cancer incidence and survival in Australia, along with the equivocal evidence for any benefit from PSA screening, there remains a need for more effective diagnostic strategies for prostate cancer to be implemented consistently regardless of where men live.

Including Information on Overdiagnosis in Shared Decision Making: A Review of Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aids.

Background. Overdiagnosis is an accepted harm of cancer screening, but studies of prostate cancer screening decision aids have not examined provision of information important in communicating the risk of overdiagnosis, including overdiagnosis frequency, competing mortality risk, and the high prevalence of indolent cancers in the population. Methods. We undertook a comprehensive review of all publicly available decision aids for prostate cancer screening, published in (or translated to) the English language, without date restrictions. We included all decision aids from a recent systematic review and screened excluded studies to identify further relevant decision aids. We used a Google search to identify further decision aids not published in peer reviewed medical literature. Two reviewers independently screened the decision aids and extracted information on communication of overdiagnosis. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third author. Results. Forty-one decision aids were included out of the 80 records identified through the search. Most decision aids (n = 32, 79%) did not use the term overdiagnosis but included a description of it (n = 38, 92%). Few (n = 7, 17%) reported the frequency of overdiagnosis. Little more than half presented the benefits of prostate cancer screening before the harms (n = 22, 54%) and only 16, (39%) presented information on competing risks of mortality. Only 2 (n = 2, 5%) reported the prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer in the general population. Conclusion. Most patient decision aids for prostate cancer screening lacked important information on overdiagnosis. Specific guidance is needed on how to communicate the risks of overdiagnosis in decision aids, including appropriate content, terminology and graphical display. Highlights: Most patient decision aids for prostate cancer screening lacks important information on overdiagnosis.Specific guidance is needed on how to communicate the risks of overdiagnosis.

Health, financial and environmental impacts of unnecessary vitamin D testing: a triple bottom line assessment adapted for healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake an assessment of the health, financial and environmental impacts of a well-recognised example of low-value care; inappropriate vitamin D testing. DESIGN: Combination of systematic literature search, analysis of routinely collected healthcare data and environmental analysis. SETTING: Australian healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Population of Australia. OUTCOME MEASURES: We took a sustainability approach, measuring the health, financial and environmental impacts of a specific healthcare activity. Unnecessary vitamin D testing rates were estimated from best available published literature; by definition, these provide no gain in health outcomes (in contrast to appropriate/necessary tests). Australian population-based test numbers and healthcare costs were obtained from Medicare for vitamin D pathology services. Carbon emissions in kg CO2e were estimated using data from our previous study of the carbon footprint of common pathology tests. We distinguished between tests ordered as the primary test and those ordered as an add-on to other tests, as many may be done in conjunction with other tests. We conducted base case (8% being the primary reason for the blood test) and sensitivity (12% primary test) analyses. RESULTS: There were a total of 4 457 657 Medicare-funded vitamin D tests in 2020, on average one test for every six Australians, an 11.8% increase from the mean 2018-2019 total. From our literature review, 76.5% of Australia's vitamin D tests provide no net health benefit, equating to 3 410 108 unnecessary tests in 2020. Total costs of unnecessary tests to Medicare amounted to >$A87 000 000. The 2020 carbon footprint of unnecessary vitamin D tests was 28 576 kg (base case) and 42 012 kg (sensitivity) CO2e, equivalent to driving ~160 000-230 000 km in a standard passenger car. CONCLUSIONS: Unnecessary vitamin D testing contributes to avoidable CO2e emissions and healthcare costs. While the footprint of this example is relatively small, the potential to realise environmental cobenefits by reducing low-value care more broadly is significant.

Effects of awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis among women with screen-detected or incidentally found breast cancer: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore experiences of women who identified themselves as having a possible breast cancer overdiagnosis. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using key components of a grounded theory analysis. SETTING: International interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and aware of the concept of overdiagnosis. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve women aged 48-77 years from the UK (6), USA (4), Canada (1) and Australia (1) who had breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ n=9, (invasive) breast cancer n=3) diagnosed between 2004 and 2019, and who were aware of the possibility of overdiagnosis. Participants were recruited via online blogs and professional clinical networks. RESULTS: Most women (10/12) became aware of overdiagnosis after their own diagnosis. All were concerned about the possibility of overdiagnosis or overtreatment or both. Finding out about overdiagnosis/overtreatment had negative psychosocial impacts on women's sense of self, quality of interactions with medical professionals, and for some, had triggered deep remorse about past decisions and actions. Many were uncomfortable with being treated as a cancer patient when they did not feel 'diseased'. For most, the recommended treatments seemed excessive compared with the diagnosis given. Most found that their initial clinical teams were not forthcoming about the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and many found it difficult to deal with their set management protocols. CONCLUSION: The experiences of this small and unusual group of women provide rare insight into the profound negative impact of finding out about overdiagnosis after breast cancer diagnosis. Previous studies have found that women valued information about overdiagnosis before screening and this knowledge did not reduce subsequent screening uptake. Policymakers and clinicians should recognise the diversity of women's perspectives and ensure that women are adequately informed of the possibility of overdiagnosis before screening.

Understanding women's choices for management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2): Qualitative analysis of a randomised experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2) would allow time for most cases to regress naturally and in turn avoid potentially unnecessary and harmful treatment. AIM: To determine reasons for choosing active surveillance over surgery among women given a hypothetical diagnosis of CIN2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women residing in Australia aged 25-40 years with no prior diagnosis of cervical cancer, cervical abnormality CIN2 or above, and/or previous hysterectomy, were randomised to one of four identical hypothetical scenarios of testing human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive: high-grade cytology and a diagnosis of CIN2 that used alternate terminology to describe resolution of abnormal cells and/or inclusion of an overtreatment statement. Participants selected active surveillance or surgery after viewing the scenario and free-text reason/s for their choice were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Of the 1638 women randomised, 79% (n = 1293) opted for active surveillance. The most common reasons for choosing active surveillance included concerns about surgery and associated risks, preferring to 'wait and see', trusting the doctor's recommendations and having an emotional response toward surgery. For women who chose surgery, being risk-averse, addressing the issue straight away and perceiving surgery to be the better option for them were the most common themes identified. CONCLUSION: When presented with balanced information on the benefits and harms of different management options for CIN2 and given a choice, most women in this hypothetical situation chose active surveillance over surgery. Addressing women's concerns about active surveillance may open up the possibility that if deemed safe, it could be an acceptable alternative for women.

The role of Primary Health Networks in cardiovascular disease prevention: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Since the inception of PHNs in Australia, their role in implementing chronic disease prevention activities in general practice has been unclear. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the views of PHN staff on the role of PHNs in promoting prevention, with a focus on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. METHODS: Content analysis of PHN Needs Assessments was conducted to inform interview questions. Twenty-nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 PHN staff, between June and December 2020, in varied roles across 18 PHNs in all Australian states and territories. Transcribed audio recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour. RESULTS: We identified three main themes: (a) Informal prevention: All respondents agreed the role of PHNs in prevention was indirect and, for the most part, outside the formal remit of PHN Key Performance Indicators (KPIs.) Prevention activities were conducted in partnership with external stakeholders, professional development and quality improvement programs, and PHN-funded data extraction and analysis software for general practice. (b) Constrained by financial incentives: Most interviewees felt the role of PHNs in prevention was contingent on the financial drivers provided by the Commonwealth government, such as Medicare funding and national quality improvement programs. (c) Shaped through competing priorities: The role of PHNs in prevention is a function of competing priorities. There was strong agreement amongst participants that the myriad competing priorities from government and local needs assessments impeded prevention activities. CONCLUSIONS: PHNs are well-positioned to foster prevention activities in general practice. However, we found that PHNs role in prevention activities was informal, constrained by financial incentives and shaped through competing priorities. Prevention can be improved through a more explicit prevention focus at the Commonwealth government level. To optimise the role of PHNs, therefore, requires prioritising prevention, aligning it with KPIs and supporting stakeholders like general practice.

Preferences for More or Less Health Care and Association With Health Literacy of Men Eligible for Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Australia.

Importance: Understanding personal factors that influence diverse responses to health care information, such as preferences for more or less health care, might be beneficial to more effective communication and better involvement in health care choices. Objective: To determine whether individuals' preferences for more or less health care are associated with informed choice and understanding of overdiagnosis in routine prostate cancer screening and to examine associations among preferences, educational status, and health literacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included a community-based sample of men in Australia aged 45 to 60 years eligible for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, recruited via an international social research company. Survey data were collected online from June 27 to July 26, 2018. Data were analyzed in April 2020. Exposures: Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 versions of an online decision aid (full-length or abbreviated) about PSA screening and completed an online survey that included a measure of preference for more or less health care, the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS), in which higher score indicates preference for more health care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was informed choice; knowledge, attitudes, and intentions about screening for prostate cancer were also measured. Results: Of 3722 participants who began the survey, 2993 (80.4%) completed it (mean [SD] age, 52.15 [6.65] years). Stronger preferences for more heath care were observed in those without tertiary education (mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P < .001) and with inadequate health literacy (mean difference, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22; P < .001). After controlling for health and demographic variables, a 1-unit increase in MMS score was associated with reduced relative risk (RR) of making an informed choice (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82; P < .001) and of having adequate conceptual knowledge (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; P < .001), correct numerical knowledge (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.97; P = .001), and correct understanding of overdiagnosis (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90; P < .001). A 1-unit increase in MMS score was associated with a more positive attitude toward screening (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15-1.21; P < .001) and more positive intention to screen (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.25; P < .001) after adjusting for control variables. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study examined associations between preferences for more or less health care and knowledge about overdiagnosis and informed choice among men in Australia. These results may motivate clinicians to elicit individual patient preferences to facilitate tailored discussions with patients about low-value care, such as prostate cancer screening, for which benefit is uncertain.

Evaluating two decision aids for Australian men supporting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Australian clinicians are advised to 'offer evidence-based decisional support to men considering whether or not to have a PSA test'. This randomised trial compared the performance and acceptability of two new decision aids (DAs) to aid men in making informed choices about PSA screening. METHODS: ~3000 Australian men 45-60 years with varying educational attainment were recruited via an online panel and randomised to view one of two online decision aids (one full length, one abbreviated) and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was informed choice about PSA screening. FINDINGS: Significantly more men in the long DA group (38%) made an informed choice than men who received the shorter DA (33%) (95% CI 1.1% to 8.2%; p = 0.008). On knowledge, the long DA group scored, on average, 0.45 points higher than the short DA group (95% CI 0.14 to 0.76; p = 0.004) and 5% more of the participants achieved an adequate knowledge score (95% CI 1.9% to 8.8%; p = 0.002). Men allocated the long DA were less likely to intend to have a PSA test in the future (53%) than men in the short DA group (59%). Both DAs rated highly on acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Both DAs were useful and acceptable to men regardless of education level and both supported informed decision making. The long version resulted in higher knowledge, and a higher proportion of men able to make an informed choice, but the differences were small. Long DAs may be useful for men whose informational needs are not satisfied by a short DA.

Resisting recommended treatment for prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of the lived experience of possible overdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the lived experience of a possible prostate cancer overdiagnosis in men who resisted recommended treatment. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study SETTING: Australia PARTICIPANTS: 11 men (aged 59-78 years) who resisted recommended prostate cancer treatment because of concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. OUTCOMES: Reported experience of screening, diagnosis and treatment decision making, and its impact on psychosocial well-being, life and personal circumstances. RESULTS: Men's accounts revealed profound consequences of both prostate cancer diagnosis and resisting medical advice for treatment, with effects on their psychological well-being, family, employment circumstances, identity and life choices. Some of these men were tested for prostate-specific antigen without their knowledge or informed consent. The men felt uninformed about their management options and unsupported through treatment decision making. This often led them to develop a sense of disillusionment and distrust towards the medical profession and conventional medicine. The findings show how some men who were told they would soon die without treatment (a prognosis which ultimately did not eventuate) reconciled issues of overdiagnosis and potential overtreatment with their own diagnosis and situation over the ensuing 1 to 20+ years. CONCLUSIONS: Men who choose not to have recommended treatment for prostate cancer may avoid treatment-associated harms like incontinence and impotence, however our findings showed that the impact of the diagnosis itself is immense and far-reaching. A high priority for improving clinical practice is to ensure men are adequately informed of these potential consequences before screening is considered.

Primary goals, information-giving and men's understanding: a qualitative study of Australian and UK doctors' varied communication about PSA screening.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To characterise variation in general practitioners' (GPs') accounts of communicating with men about prostate cancer screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (2) to characterise GPs' reasons for communicating as they do and (3) to explain why and under what conditions GP communication approaches vary. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A grounded theory study. We interviewed 69 GPs consulting in primary care practices in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29). RESULTS: GPs explained their communication practices in relation to their primary goals. In Australia, three different communication goals were reported: to encourage asymptomatic men to either have a PSA test, or not test, or alternatively, to support men to make their own decision. As well as having different primary goals, GPs aimed to provide different information (from comprehensive to strongly filtered) and to support men to develop different kinds of understanding, from population-level to 'gist' understanding. Taking into account these three dimensions (goals, information, understanding) and building on Entwistle et al's Consider an Offer framework, we derived four overarching approaches to communication: Be screened, Do not be screened, Analyse and choose, and As you wish. We also describe ways in which situational and relational factors influenced GPs' preferred communication approach. CONCLUSION: GPs' reported approach to communicating about prostate cancer screening varies according to three dimensions-their primary goal, information provision preference and understanding sought-and in response to specific practice situations. If GP communication about PSA screening is to become more standardised in Australia, it is likely that each of these dimensions will require attention in policy and practice support interventions.

Avoiding harm and supporting autonomy are under-prioritised in cancer-screening policies and practices.

The ethical principles of avoiding harm and supporting autonomy are relevant to cancer-screening policy. We argue that more attention needs to be given to implementing them. Cancer screening may deliver excessive harms due to low-value or outdated screening programs and from poorly communicated screening options that leave people with heavy burdens of decision-making. Autonomy is inadequately supported due to limited opportunities for people to understand downsides of screening and because of institutional and societal pressures in favour of screening. Members of screening policy committees may have differing ideas about the goals of screening or have conflicts of interest that prevent them from addressing policy questions in a neutral way. We recommend the following: 1. Committees should be required to discern and discuss the values of individual members and the wider public; 2. Committee membership and voting procedures should be more carefully constructed to reduce the likelihood that committee members' interests are placed above public interests; 3. Committees should explain their policy decisions with reference to values as well as evidence, so that values considered in decision-making can be interrogated and challenged if necessary. These changes would increase the likelihood that cancer-screening policy decisions are in keeping with public views about what is important.

Doctors' perspectives on PSA testing illuminate established differences in prostate cancer screening rates between Australia and the UK: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how general practitioners (GPs) in the UK and GPs in Australia explain their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing practices and to illuminate how these explanations are similar and how they are different. DESIGN: A grounded theory study. SETTING: Primary care practices in Australia and the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 69 GPs in Australia (n=40) and the UK (n=29). We included GPs of varying ages, sex, clinical experience and patient populations. All GPs interested in participating in the study were included. RESULTS: GPs' accounts revealed fundamental differences in whether and how prostate cancer screening occurred in their practice and in the broader context within which they operate. The history of prostate screening policy, organisational structures and funding models appeared to drive more prostate screening in Australia and less in the UK. In Australia, screening processes and decisions were mostly at the discretion of individual clinicians, and varied considerably, whereas the accounts of UK GPs clearly reflected a consistent, organisationally embedded approach based on local evidence-based recommendations to discourage screening. CONCLUSIONS: The GP accounts suggested that healthcare systems, including historical and current organisational and funding structures and rules, collectively contribute to how and why clinicians use the PSA test and play a significant role in creating the mindlines that GPs employ in their clinic. Australia's recently released consensus guidelines may support more streamlined and consistent care. However, if GP mindlines and thus routine practice in Australia are to shift, to ultimately reduce unnecessary or harmful prostate screening, it is likely that other important drivers at all levels of the screening process will need to be addressed.

General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial. There are unresolved tensions and disagreements amongst experts, and clinical guidelines conflict. This both reflects and generates significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of screening. Little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives and experiences in relation to PSA testing of asymptomatic men. In this paper we asked the following questions: (1) What are the primary sources of uncertainty as described by GPs in the context of PSA testing? (2) How do GPs experience and respond to different sources of uncertainty? METHODS: This was a qualitative study that explored general practitioners' current approaches to, and reasoning about, PSA testing of asymptomatic men. We draw on accounts generated from interviews with 69 general practitioners located in Australia (n = 40) and the United Kingdom (n = 29). The interviews were conducted in 2013-2014. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods. Uncertainty in PSA testing was identified as a core issue. FINDINGS: Australian GPs reported experiencing substantially more uncertainty than UK GPs. This seemed partly explainable by notable differences in conditions of practice between the two countries. Using Han et al's taxonomy of uncertainty as an initial framework, we first outline the different sources of uncertainty GPs (mostly Australian) described encountering in relation to prostate cancer screening and what the uncertainty was about. We then suggest an extension to Han et al's taxonomy based on our analysis of data relating to the varied ways that GPs manage uncertainties in the context of PSA testing. We outline three broad strategies: (1) taking charge of uncertainty; (2) engaging others in managing uncertainty; and (3) transferring the responsibility for reducing or managing some uncertainties to other parties. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests some GPs experienced uncertainties associated with ambiguous guidance and the complexities of their situation as professionals with responsibilities to patients as considerably burdensome. This raises important questions about responsibility for uncertainty. In Australia in particular they feel insufficiently supported by the health care system to practice in ways that are recognisably consistent with 'evidence based' professional standards and appropriate for patients. More work is needed to clarify under what circumstances and how uncertainty should be communicated. Closer attention to different types and aspects of the uncertainty construct could be useful.

"What should happen before asymptomatic men decide whether or not to have a PSA test?" A report on three community juries.

OBJECTIVES: To elicit the views of well informed community members on the ethical obligations of general practitioners regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, and what should be required before a man undergoes a PSA test. DESIGN AND SETTING: Three community juries held at the University of Sydney over 6 months in 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Forty participants from New South Wales, of diverse social and cultural backgrounds and with no experience of prostate cancer, recruited through public advertising: two juries of mixed gender and ages; one all-male jury of PSA screening age. RESULTS: In contrast to Royal Australian College of General Practitioners guidelines, the three juries concluded that GPs should initiate discussions about PSA testing with asymptomatic men over 50 years of age. The mixed juries voted for GPs offering detailed information about all potential consequent benefits and harms before PSA testing, and favoured a cooling-off period before undertaking the test. The all-male jury recommended a staggered approach to providing information. They recommended that written information be available to those who wanted it, but eight of the 12 jurors thought that doctors should discuss the benefits and harms of biopsy and treatment only after a man had received an elevated PSA test result. CONCLUSIONS: Informed jury participants preferred that GPs actively supported individual men in making decisions about PSA testing, and that they allowed a cooling-off period before testing. However, men of screening age argued that uncertain and detailed information should be communicated only after receiving an elevated PSA test result.

Screening for Cervical, Prostate, and Breast Cancer: Interpreting the Evidence.

Cancer screening is an important component of prevention and early detection in public health and clinical medicine. The evidence for cancer screening, however, is often contentious. A description and explanation of disagreements over the evidence for cervical, breast, and prostate screening may assist physicians, policymakers, and citizens faced with screening decisions and suggest directions for future screening research. There are particular issues to be aware of in the evidence base for each form of screening, which are summarized in this paper. Five tensions explain existing conflicts over the evidence: (1) data from differing contexts may not be comparable; (2) screening technologies affect evidence quality, and thus evidence must evolve with changing technologies; (3) the quality of evidence of benefit varies, and the implications are contested; (4) evidence about harm is relatively new, there are gaps in that evidence, and there is disagreement over what it means; and (5) evidence about outcomes is often poorly communicated. The following principles will assist people to evaluate and use the evidence: (1) attend closely to transferability; (2) consider the influence of technologies on the evidence base; (3) query the design of meta-analyses; (4) ensure harms are defined and measured; and (5) improve risk communication practices. More fundamentally, there is a need to question the purpose of cancer screening and the values that inform that purpose, recognizing that different stakeholders may value different things. If implemented, these strategies will improve the production and interpretation of the methodologically challenging and always-growing evidence for and against cancer screening.

Doctors' approaches to PSA testing and overdiagnosis in primary healthcare: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To explain general practitioners' (GPs') approaches to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and overdiagnosis; (2) to explain how GPs reason about their PSA testing routines and (3) to explain how these routines influence GPs' personal experience as clinicians. SETTING: Primary care practices in Australia including men's health clinics and rural practices with variable access to urology services. PARTICIPANTS: 32 urban and rural GPs within Australia. We included GPs of varying ages, gender (11 female), clinical experience and patient populations. All GPs interested in participating in the study were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were analysed using grounded theory methods to determine how and why GPs provide (or do not provide) PSA testing to their asymptomatic male patients. RESULTS: We observed patterned variation in GP practice, and identified four heuristics to describe GP preference for, and approaches to, PSA testing and overdiagnosis: (1) GPs who prioritised avoiding underdiagnosis, (2) GPs who weighed underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis case by case, (3) GPs who prioritised avoiding overdiagnosis and (4) GPs who did not engage with overdiagnosis at all. The heuristics guided GPs' Routine Practice (usual testing, communication and responses to patient request). The heuristics also reflected GPs' different Practice Rationales (drawing on experience, medicolegal obligations, guidelines and evidence) and produced different Practice Outcomes (GPs' experiences of the consequences of their PSA testing decisions). Some of these heuristics were more responsive to patient preferences than others. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in GPs' PSA testing practices is strongly related to their approach to overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Men receive very different care depending on their GP's reasoning and practice preferences. Future policy to address overdiagnosis will be more likely to succeed if it responds to these patterned variations.

Accuracy of self-reported nevus and pigmentation phenotype compared with clinical assessment in a population-based study of young Australian adults.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of individual risk may encourage improved prevention and early detection of melanoma. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of self-reported pigmentation and nevus phenotype compared with clinical assessment, and examined agreement between nevus counts from selected anatomical regions. The sample included 456 cases with invasive cutaneous melanoma diagnosed between ages 18 to 39 years and 538 controls from the population-based Australian Melanoma Family Study. Participants completed a questionnaire about their pigmentation and nevus phenotype, and attended a dermatologic skin examination. RESULTS: There was strong agreement between self-reported and clinical assessment of eye color [κ, = 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.81]; and moderate agreement for hair color (κ = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.50). Agreement between self-reported skin color and spectrophotometer-derived measurements was poor (κ = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.08-0.16) to moderate (Spearman correlation rs = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.42). Participants tended to underestimate their nevus counts and pigmentation; men were more likely to underreport their skin color. The rs was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.38-0.49) comparing clinical total body nevus counts with self-reported nevus categories. There was good agreement between total body nevus counts and site-specific nevus counts, particularly on both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults have suboptimal accuracy when assessing important risk characteristics including nevus numbers and pigmentation. Measuring nevus count on the arms is a good predictor of full body nevus count. IMPACT: These results have implications for the likely success of targeted public health programs that rely on self-assessment of these factors.