Applying strategies from libertarian paternalism to decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening

David C Wheeler, Konrad M Szymanski, Amanda Black, David E Nelson, David C Wheeler, Konrad M Szymanski, Amanda Black, David E Nelson

Abstract

Background: Despite the recent publication of results from two randomized clinical trials, prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains a controversial issue. There is lack of agreement across studies that PSA screening significantly reduces prostate cancer mortality. In spite of these facts, the widespread use of PSA testing in the United States leads to overdetection and overtreatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer, and its associated harms of incontinence and impotence.

Discussion: Given the inconclusive results from clinical trials and incongruent PSA screening guidelines, the decision to screen for prostate cancer with PSA testing is an uncertain one for patients and health care providers. Screening guidelines from some health organizations recommend an informed decision making (IDM) or shared decision making (SDM) approach for deciding on PSA screening. These approaches aim to empower patients to choose among the available options by making them active participants in the decision making process. By increasing involvement of patients in the clinical decision-making process, IDM/SDM places more of the responsibility for a complex decision on the patient. Research suggests, however, that patients are not well-informed of the harms and benefits associated with prostate cancer screening and are also subject to an assortment of biases, emotion, fears, and irrational thought that interferes with making an informed decision. In response, the IDM/SDM approaches can be augmented with strategies from the philosophy of libertarian paternalism (LP) to improve decision making. LP uses the insights of behavioural economics to help people better make better choices. Some of the main strategies of LP applicable to PSA decision making are a default decision rule, framing of decision aids, and timing of the decision. In this paper, we propose that applying strategies from libertarian paternalism can help with PSA screening decision-making.

Summary: Our proposal to augment IDM and SDM approaches with libertarian paternalism strategies is intended to guide patients toward a better decision about testing while maintaining personal freedom of choice. While PSA screening remains controversial and evidence conflicting, a libertarian-paternalism influenced approach to decision making can help prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

References

    1. What are the key statistics about prostate cancer?
    1. Andriole G, Crawford E, Grubb R III, Buys S, Chia D, Church T. et al.Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–1319. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810696.
    1. Schröder F, Hugosson J, Roobol M, Tammela T, Ciatto S, Nelen V. et al.Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–1328. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084.
    1. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, Pihl C, Stranne J, Holmberg E, Lilja H. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomized population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:725–732. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7.
    1. Stark J, Mucci L, Rothman K, Adami H. Screening for prostate cancer remains controversial. BMJ. 2009;339:784–786.
    1. American Urological Association Education and Research Inc. Prostate-Specific Antigen Best Practice Statement: 2009 Update. 2009.
    1. US Preventative Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:185–191.
    1. Wolf A, Wender R, Etzioni R, Thompson I, D'Amico A, Volk R. et al.American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:70–98. doi: 10.3322/caac.20066.
    1. Deber R. Shared decision making in the real world. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:377–378. doi: 10.1007/BF02600052.
    1. Wennberg J. Shared decision making and the future of managed care. Disease Management and Clinical Outcomes. 1997;1:15–16.
    1. Volk R, Spann S. Decision-aids for prostate cancer screening. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(5):425–427.
    1. Barry M, Cherkin D, Chang Y, Fowler F, Skates S. A randomized trial of a multimedia shared decision-making program for men facing a treatment decision for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Disease Management and Clinical Outcomes. 1997;1:5–14.
    1. Volk R, Cass A, Spann S. A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:333–340. doi: 10.1001/archfami.8.4.333.
    1. Schapira M, Vanruiswyk J. The effect of an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid on the use of prostate cancer screening tests. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:418–424.
    1. van Vugt H, Roobol M, Venderbos L, Joosten-van Zwanenburg E, Essink-Bot M, Steyerberg E, Bangma C, Korfage I. Informed decision making on PSA testing for the detection of prostate cancer: an evaluation of a leaflet with risk indicator. European Journal of Cancer. 2010;46:669–677. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.11.022.
    1. Barry M. Health decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in office practice. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:127–135.
    1. Wolf A, Nasser J, Wolf A, Schorling J. The impact of informed consent of patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1333–1336. doi: 10.1001/archinte.156.12.1333.
    1. Flood A, Wennberg J, Nease RJ, Fowler FJ, Ding J, Hynes L. The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:342–349. doi: 10.1007/BF02600045.
    1. Frosch D, Kaplan R, Felitti V. The evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:391–398. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016006391.x.
    1. Barry M, Wescott P, Reifler E, Chang Y, Moulton B. Reactions of potential jurors to a hypothetical malpractice suit: alleging failure to perform a prostate-specific antigen test. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):396–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00283.x.
    1. Moulton B, King J. Aligning ethics with medical decision-making: the quest for informed patient choice. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38(1):85–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00469.x.
    1. Rimer B, Briss P, Zeller P, Chan E, Woolf S. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer. 2004;101(5 Suppl):1214–1228.
    1. Hoffman R, Couper M, Zikmund-Fisher B, Levin C, McNaughton-Collins M, Helitzer D. et al.Prostate cancer screening decisions. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1611–1618. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.262.
    1. O'Dell K, Volk R, Cass A, Spann S. Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test: are patients making informed decisions? J Fam Pract. 1999;48(9):679–681.
    1. Arkes H. In: Symptom Research: Methods and Opportunities. Max M, Lynn J, editor. National Institutes of Health; 2003. The psychology of patient decision making.
    1. Sunstein C, Thaler R. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review. 2003;70(4):1159–1202. doi: 10.2307/1600573.
    1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683.
    1. Walter L, Bertenthal D, Lindquist K, Konety B. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA. 2006;296(19):2336–2342. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.19.2336.
    1. Chan E, Sulmasy D. What should men know about prostate-specific antigen screening before giving informed consent? Am J Med. 1998;105:266–274. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00257-5.
    1. Laine C, Davidoff F, Lewis C, Nelson E, Nelson E, Kessler R. et al.Important elements of outpatient care: a comparison of patients' and physicians' opinions. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:640–645.
    1. Ransohoff D, McNaughton Collins M, Fowler FJ. Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? a system without negative feedback. The American Journal of Medicine. 2002;113:663–667. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01235-4.
    1. Barry M. Involving patients in medical decisions: how can physicians do better? JAMA. 1999;282:2356–2357. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.24.2356.
    1. Thaler R, Sunstein C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York: Penguin Group; 2008.
    1. Lowenstein G, Brennan T, Volpp K. Asymmetric paternalism to improve heath behaviors. JAMA. 2007;298:2415–2417. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.20.2415.
    1. Halpern S, Ubel P, Asch D. Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1340–1344. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb071595.
    1. Arkes H, Dawson N, Speroff T, Harrell FJ, Alzola C, Phillips R, Desbiens N, Oye R, Knaus W, Conners AJ. The covariance decomposition of the probability score and its use in evaluating prognostic estimates. SUPPORT Investigators. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(2):120–131.
    1. Ward J, Hughes A, Hirst G, Winchester L. Men's estimates of prostate cancer risk and self-reported rates of screening. The Medical Journal of Australia. 1997;167:250–253.
    1. Rai T, Clements A, Bukach C. et al.What influences men's decision to have a prostate-specific antigen test? A qualitative study. Fam Pract. 2007;24(4):365–371. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmm033.
    1. Carter H. Prostate cancers in men with low PSA levels - must we find them? N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2292–2294. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe048003.
    1. Albertsen P. PSA testing: public policy or private penchant? JAMA. 2006;296(19):2371–2373. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.19.2371.
    1. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B, Metrick A. In: Behavioral Public Finance. McCaffery E, Slemrod J, editor. New York: Russell Sage; 2006. Saving for retirement on the path of least resistance.
    1. Madrian B, Shea D. The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2001;116:1149–1225. doi: 10.1162/003355301753265543.
    1. Johnson E, Goldstein D. Do defaults save lives? Science. 2003;302:1338–1339. doi: 10.1126/science.1091721.
    1. Junghans C, Feder G, Hemingway H, Timmis A, Jones M. Recruiting patients to medical research: double blind randomised trial of "opt-in" versus "opt-out" strategies. BMJ. 2005;331:940–942. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Courser M, Shamblen S, Lavrakas P, Collins D, Ditterline P. The impact of active consent procedures on nonresponse and nonresponse error in youth survey data: evidence from a new experiment. Eval Rev. 2009;33:370–395. doi: 10.1177/0193841X09337228.
    1. Johnson E, Bellman S, Lohse G. Defaults, framing and privacy: why opting in-opting out. Marketing Letters. 2002;13:5–15. doi: 10.1023/A:1015044207315.
    1. Briss P, Rodewald L, Hinman A, Shefer A, Strikas R. et al.Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents, and adults. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(1 Suppl):97–140.
    1. Cornia P, Amory J, Fraser S, Saint S, Lipsky B. Computerbased order entry decreases duration of indwelling urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2003;114:404–407. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01568-1.
    1. Gigerenzer G. Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. New York: Penguin Group; 2007.
    1. Malenka D, Baron J, Johansen S, Wahrenberger J, Ross J. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern med. 1993;8(10):543–548. doi: 10.1007/BF02599636.
    1. Bayer R, Fairchild A. Changing the paradigm for HIV testing - the end of exceptionalism. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:647–649. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp068153.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere