RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review to identify, critically appraise and synthesise the existing literature on the association between SEP and multimorbidity occurrence. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase from inception to December 2014. Where possible we performed meta-analysis to obtain summary odds ratios (ORs), exploring heterogeneity between studies through sub-group analysis. RESULTS: We identified 24 cross-sectional studies that largely reported on education, deprivation or income in relation to multimorbidity occurrence. Differences in analysis methods allowed pooling of results for education only. Low versus high education level was associated with a 64% increased odds of multimorbidity (summary OR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.91), with substantial heterogeneity between studies partly explained by method of multimorbidity ascertainment. Increasing deprivation was consistently associated with increasing risk of multimorbidity, whereas the evidence on income was mixed. Few studies reported on interaction with age or sex. CONCLUSIONS: More methodologically robust studies that address these gaps and investigate alternate measures of social circumstances and environment may advance our understanding of how SEP affects multimorbidity risk. Implications for public health: A deeper understanding of the socioeconomic and demographic patterning of multimorbidity will help identify sub-populations at greatest risk of becoming multimorbid.